Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_03_04_03_3344_PVDW_PC_Decision_AppealCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILWOMAN SUSAN BROOKS MARCH 4, 2014 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WHETHER TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION RELATED TO A PROJECT LOCATED 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~ Project Manager: L0za Mikhail, Associate Planner~ RECOMMENDATION Determine whether to appeal the Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 decision to conditionally approve Site Plan Review and Grading Permit applications related to a proposed new residence located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. ZON2012-00141). BACKGROUND On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission approved on a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin and Emenhiser absent, P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 (attached), conditionally approving a Revision to a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit for the construction of a new two-story residence located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. The Planning Commission's decision was consistent with the California Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350 that was approved by the California Coastal Commission on December 12, 2013. A full description of the project history can be found in the "Background" section of the attached February 11, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report. Additionally, a copy of the full record for the project is attached to this report for the City Council's review. On February 13, 2014, Staff sent a notice of the Planning Commission's decision to the applicant and all interested parties identifying an appeal period deadline of February 27, 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014, prior to the expiration of the appeal period, the Acting City Manager was notified in writing by Councilwoman Brooks (please see attached request) requesting that an item be placed on the March 4, 2014 City Council Agenda to allow the entire City Council to consider whether the Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 decision should be appealed by the City Council. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.80.130, this item is being presented to the City Council for 3-1 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 2 discussion and consideration. DISCUSSION According to Section 17.80.130 of the City's Municipal Code (Appeals by City Council), the final decision of a City Commission, in this case the Planning Commission, may be appealed by the City Council in the following manner: A. Any one City Council member may contact the City Manager and request that an item be placed on the next City Council agenda so that the entire City Council can consider whether to appeal a commission's decision on an application. The request from the council member must be made in writing within fifteen calendar days of the commission's final decision on an application. B. If an appeal request from a council member is received by the City Manager, the appeal period for the City Council shall be automatically extended by thirty additional calendar days. This extended appeal period shall apply only to City Council appeals in order for the City Council to determine whether to appeal the commission's decision. C. An applicant or any other interested person may file an appeal with the City before or after an appeal request has been made by a council member, provided the appeal is filed within the standard fifteen day appeal period. An applicant or any other interested party may not file an appeal during the City's extended thirty day appeal period. D. The City Council shall determine by a majority vote whether to appeal the commission's decision. As a result of Councilwoman Brook's request to consider an appeal, the appeal period for the City Council is automatically extended by thirty days. However, the appeal period for the general public remains at 15 days. As of the preparation of this report, no appeal by an interested party has been filed. Staff will notify the City Council if an appeal is filed before the February 27 appeal deadline identified in the Notice of Decision. If the City Council agrees to appeal the Planning Commission's decision, a public notice will be provided to all interested parties noting that the appeal hearing will be conducted by the City Council at a future, to be determined, date. If the City Council agrees to not appeal the Planning Commission's decision, no further action will be taken unless a separate timely appeal is filed by an interested party to the project. Staff has notified the project applicant and all interested parties of the City Council's consideration of whether to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. CONCLUSION At the request of Councilwoman Brooks, the City Council is being requested to consider appealing the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit applications related to a new residence at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. A copy of the entire record has been provided for the City Council's review related to the project approved by the City's Planning Commission and California Coastal Commission at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. ZON2012-00141). Should the application be appealed, the project would be heard de novo through a duly noticed public hearing at a future City Council meeting. 3-2 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 3 Attachments: • Councilwoman Brooks request to consider the grounds of an appeal • Additional Correspondence • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 • February 11, 2014 P.C. Staff Report • February 11, 2014 P.C. Minutes • February 11, 2014 P.C. Late Correspondence • February 11, 2014 Public Comment Letters • California Coastal Commission Notice oflntent to Issue Permit (Received 01-10-14) • Coastal Commission Notification of Final Appeal Action (Received 01-03-14) • Coastal Commission Staff Report for 12-12-13 Coastal Appeal Hearing • California Coastal Commission Correspondence Letters/Notices o Coastal Commission Staff Report for 12-12-13 Coastal Appeal Hearing o Letter agreeing to the proposed modifications (Received 09-17-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Appeal (Received 01-02-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Appeal Period (Received 12-19-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Deficient Notice (Received 11-01-12) • P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 (Approved 09-25-12) • September 25, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • September 25, 2012 P.C. Minutes • September 11, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • September 11, 2012 P.C. Minutes • August 14, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • August 14, 2012 P.C. Minutes • October 8, 2013 P.C. Staff Report (REVISED PROJECT WITHDRAWN) o October 8, 2013 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 (null and void due to withdrawal) o October 8, 2013 P.C. Minutes o October 8, 2013 Late Correspondence • Revised Project Plans 3-3 Councilwoman Brook's Request to Consider the Grounds of an Appeal ... Attachments 3-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER COUNCILWOMAN BROOKS FEBRUARY 24, 2014 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPEAL THE PROJECT LOCATED 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) As provided in Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.80.130(A) -Appeals by City Council, I hereby request that the Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 decision regarding the above referenced project be placed on the next City Council agenda, so that the entire City Council can consider whether to appeal the Commission's decision on the application. Attachments 3-2 Additional Correspondence Attachments 3-3 Leza Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:50 PM Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: follow-up re: 3344 PCDr. West info From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:06 PM Jo: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: follow-up re: 3344 PCDr. West info Thank you! Correction to info below: the current project ridgeline height is 272.50' MSL, not 276.73' which was the height proposed for the project in 2012. The 1998 proposed structure height for this site was 281.33' which was denied by the P.C. and then lowered by the applicant to 275.75' which was then rounded up to 276' in 1999. However, the Viewing Station is not defined for any of them. Lenee CC: Joelr@mv.com; carolynn@rpv.com From: subrooks08@gmail.com Subject: Re: follow-up re: 3344 PCDr. West info Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:59:28 -0800 To: leneebilski@hotmail.com Lenee, Thank you for taking the time to work with me on this issue. FYI, I just met with Joel and submitted a request for appeal consideration by Council. It will be in the March 4 th agenda along with a description of the Coastal Specific Plan. I Cc'ing staff on your informative background info. Thank you for caring about our beautiful Paradise we call· RPV. Best, Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) ·S~nt from my iPhone 1 Attachments 3-4 On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Susan, Thanks again for your "coffee" sessions and for your interest in considering filing an appeal of the PC decision for the 3344 Palos Verdes Dr. West proposal. I'm writing as a follow-up to our conversation and my phone message. I care about the city. You care about the city. The City has the authority to apply our own ordinances as long as what we do does not undercut the CA Coastal Commission's orders that restrict the scope of the applicant's project. I would like the City to impose a condition that requires an even lower ridgeline. The CCC would not need to step in to overrule RPV. The applicant claims that further grading is infeasible. That is unfounded as I have read the RPV staff report for a proposed project in 1998 for this same site which included sixteen feet (16') cut and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. (pg. 11 of 15 RPV Var. No. 437, 10/27/1998) If it was possible then, it is possible now. Furthermore, a smaller structure on the one-acre lot is also feasible. Facts: Originally there was a 1-story 2866 sq.ft. residence on the lot at 3344 PVDRWest. In 1998 there was a request to replace it with a 16,082 sq.ft. 2-story residence with 4,320 cu yds. of grading. Variance, Height Variation, besides Grading and Coastal permits. Ridegline was proposed at 281.33. Staff noted curb elevation of app. 267.0' and that even 16ft. height is above the horizontal plane from the viewing level of PVDrWest, blocking the ocean view. Staff recommended denial without prejudice. In 1998 the city staff declares the General' Plan identifies Palos Verdes Dr. West in this vicinity as a view corridor. Staff report states "The proposed project will significantly obstruct the focused vista of Santa Catalina Island as viewed from the southbound PVDr. West. This is inconsistent with Visual Aspect No.3 of the General Plan (p. 192)" (Staff Report Variance #437 et al Oct. 27, 1998) When the applicant came back in 1999 with a revised height of 276.0' and 9,697 sq.ft. residence and no subterranean garage, the P.C. granted approval. • Palos Verdes Drive West and South is a view corridor • the 2-degree down-arc has been disregarded • the RPV General Plan has been not been honored • the current approval is for a 10,000 sq.ft.residence which at a height of 276.73'MSL encroaches into the 2 degree down-arc • the current Planning Commission-approved proposal is contrary to the RPV General Plan because it does not mitigate impacts to view enough to preserve, protect and enhance the visual character of the City as seen from Palos Verdes Dr. West It would block the ocean view and Santa Catalina Island for the public from Palos Verdes Drive, a view corridor • the current approved plan does not limit foliage height enough to preserve the view through the existing (90% light and air) wrought iron fence • the spirit of the City's Founders and the Coastal Specific Plan has not been upheld 2 Attachments 3-5 So it's not just the Coastal Specific Plan but also the General Plan that's to be considered. The public's view of the ocean and Catalina, not just the "horizon" line needs to be preserved. Although the current owner/applicant revised the 2012 down some, it is still not enough to protect the public's view. It needs to be lowered more or re-designed. We need the Council to review this proposal. The public appealed the project without a fee in Oct. 2013 but the applicant withdrew the permit application before the appeal could be heard by the City Council. Any member of the Clty Council may appeal this according to RPV Code # 17 .80.130. The property owners are free to build so long as they follow the rules and parameters. They have choices; we have rights that are to be protected for us now and for all the future generations to come. This is not about view obstruction claims by a neighbor; this is about a much greater good -preserving the coastal view corridor that our very detailed Local Coastal Plan is designed to protect. Please consider my request that you speak to the city manager and bring this before the Council on appeal. Thank you so much for your efforts for RPV! Best regards, Lenee (310) 377-2645 3 Attachments 3-6 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Attachments 3-7 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A REVISION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND GRADING PERMIT, CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. A-5-RPV-12-350 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,382 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 977 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A VACANT DOWNSLOPING LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 3,884 CUBIC YARDS OF CUTf 96 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND THREE (3) ASSOICATED RETAINING WALLS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO ZON2012-00141 ). WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the property owner, Ravi Khosla, submitted applications for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for approval to construct a new home on a vacant residential property; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested applications would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(a); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, at which.time the public hearing was continued to September 25, 2012 to allow Staff and the Applicant time to research any benefits of reducing the proposed ridgeline by 1 '-9" and any reduction in overall grading; and, WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Case No. ZON2012-00141 and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16, conditionally approving a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, a total of 2,988 cubic yards of excavation, 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) retaining walls associated with the development of the property; and, WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, a City "Notice of the Decision" memorializing the Attachments 3-8 Planning Commission's decision was mailed to the applicant, all interested parties who submitted comments or attended the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, and the Coastal Commission. The Notice of Decision described the approved project and applicable Coastal Permit findings, and noted a fifteen (15) day appeal period for any interested party to appeal the project to the City Council. The appeal period expired on October 10, 2012. No appeal was filed with the City; and, WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, after all City appeal periods were exhausted and pursuant to RPV Municipal Code Section 17. 72.070(E), the City provided a notice of its final action ("Notice of Final Decision") by first-class mail to the Coastal Commission and interested parties. The October 16, 2012 Notice of Final Decision concluded that the project was in the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, pursuant to the maps available at City Hall; and, WHEREAS, on October 29, 2012, the California Coastal Commission sent the City a "Notice of Deficient Notice," noting that the subject property was located in an appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, not a non-appealable area, and notified the City that its action was suspended and the Coastal Commission's appeal period would not commence until a sufficient notice of action was received; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012, following multiple conversations between the City Staff, Coastal Commission Staff, the City Attorney and the Applicant, the City reissued a Notice of Final Decision noting that the project was located within the appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District. The notice included the procedures for appeal of the City's local decision (Planning Commission approval) to the Coastal Commission. Subsequently, the Coastal Commission provided a "Notice of Appeal Period" (attached) which noted that the Coastal Commission appeal period expired on December 27, 2012; and, WHEREAS, on January 2, 2013, the City received notice that the proposed project was appealed within a timely manner, on December 27, 2013, by two (2) Coastal Commissioners (Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner Shallenberger) noting concerns that the proposed project raises an issue as to the consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Specifically, the Coastal Commission had concerns that the approved project would have a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available from Palos Verdes Drive West across the vacant, residential project site. Additionally, the Coastal Commission opined that the City did not consider other feasible design alternatives to reduce potential visual impacts as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West; and, WHEREAS, between January 2013 and September 2013, the applicant discussed potential design modifications to the project with the Coastal Commission Staff in an attempt to address the view impact concerns raised in the Coastal Commission's appeal. Ultimately, as a result of these discussions, the applicant and Coastal Commission Staff agreed upon a revised project design that would allow the Coastal Commission to withdraw its appeal. In an effort to address the Coastal Commission Staff's concerns with the project, the applicant submitted a revised project to the City which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 2of13 Attachments 3-9 October 8, 2013 (5-2, with Commissioners Tetreault and Emenhiser dissenting). The Planning Commission's decision on the revised project was subsequently appealed to the City Council by a number of City residents; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, Staff received a letter of withdrawal from the applicant stating that they were formally withdrawing the revised project that was approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2013. The applicant noted that they were instead going to move forward with their original application that was before the California Coastal Commission on appeal from the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission approval. As a result, the October 8, 2013 Planning Commission decision on the revised project became null and void, and the appeal hearing before the City Council did not occur. A letter was sent to the appellants on November 6, 2013, informing them of the recent withdrawal and their rights to be able to submit comments and/or attend the Coastal Hearing on the project; and, WHEREAS, on December 12, 2013, the California Coastal Commission, attheirCoastal Hearing, made a determination that the proposed project raised a "substantial issue" and therefore brought forth a de novo hearing of the appeal of the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission decision. A full account of the California Coastal Commission substantial issue and de novo appeal Staff report and record are attached for the Planning Commission's reference. In summary, as a result of reviewing the merits of the project, the California Coastal Commission required the applicant to reduce the height of the maximum ridgeline of the residence to an elevation of 272.50'. The California Coastal Commission also imposed specific conditions of approval that relate to the landscaping proposed to be installed and maintained throughout the property. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes received the California Coastal Commission's Notification of Final Appeal Action on January 3, 2014. The California Coastal Commission imposed specific conditions on the Coastal Development Permit as outlined in the California Coastal Commission Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit, and, WHEREAS, after receiving the Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit from the California Coastal Commission, the City scheduled a public hearing to make the City's permits (Grading Permit and Site Plan Review) conform to the project approved by the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, on January 20, 2014, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, interested parties and the California Coastal Commission, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns related to the grading permit and site plan review application. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 23, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission does hereby find that a Revision to the Site ..- Plan Review can be approved as the revised 10,382 square foot residence, 977 square foot garage, pool, spa and other ancillary improvements (trellis, firepit, BBQ, and covered entry) comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zoning district. Specifically, the P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 3 of 13 Attachments 3-10 proposed improvements will meet the required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks, as well as the maximum 25% lot coverage. Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact in order to approve the Revision to the Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new residence and other ancillary improvements because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The underlying zoning district is single-family residential. The proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot. A total of 3,884 cubic yards of cut will be conducted on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas. More specifically, 1, 737 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the new residence, 679 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway, 237 cubic yards of cut to create a level courtyard at the front of the residence, and 1,231 cubic yards of cut at the rear of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal amount of dirt (96 cubic yards) within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, it appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable yard area. B. The grading would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor views from the viewing area of neighboring properties as the proposed retaining walls will follow the existing contours as seen from the street and neighboring properties. A total of three (3) retaining walls are proposed around the property, in addition to other garden walls that are below 3'-0" in height. Two (2) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of- way. A third retaining wall will reach a maximum height of 3'-0" in the rear yard of the property. Although the height of the retaining wall is minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure, due to the fact that the applicant is excavating beneath the new residence, the finished grade will ultimately be lowered. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have been built in the same location. c. The proposed grading which accommodates the new residence and development of the single-family residential lot minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence, vehicular access, and useable rear yard area. The existing· contours outside of the graded area and retaining walls will be maintained. Further, the vacant lot is zoned for residential development, and can accommodate a new single-family residence. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 4of13 Attachments 3-11 D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. The majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and hillside surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. E. The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The new residence will be proportional to the neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the original character, style and setting of the neighborhood. While the square footage of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). With regard to bulk and mass, the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side of Marguerite Drive. The orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Additionally, although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fagade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents, such as multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, and first and second story accent molding, to break up the potential impacts of a large home. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. G. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill and height of retaining walls for two (2) of the three (3) proposed retaining walls. More specifically, no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. The construction of the residence and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-12' in order to accommodate the residence which is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 5of13 Attachments 3-12 a new home on a downslope lot that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and protects views of the ocean from Palos Verdes Drive West. H. Although a 6'-0" tall upslope retaining wall exceeds the allowable heights for upslope retaining walls on a single-family residential lot, the Planning Commission finds that the south side yard retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in Section 17.76.040 of the Municipal Code. Approving the deviation to the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that would help support the rear and side yard of the property. Further, retaining walls are commonly found within the hillside neighborhood and approval of the retaining wall that exceeds 3'-6" would not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside topography. Additionally, the retaining wall cannot be seen from other neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. Lastly, the retaining wall and grading would not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a soil engineering report. I. Pursuant to Section 17. 76.040(E)(1 O)(e) of the RPV Municipal Code, the City is required to notify all owners of property adjacent to the subject property whenever a grading permit is granted for development in excess of that permissible under Section 17.76.040(E)(9) of the RPV Municipal Code. As such, a Notice of Decision will be sent to the following adjacent property owners: 1) Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association I 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2) Stiassni Family I 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 3) Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab / 7 416 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property. The proposed residence will be located on a lot that was previously developed with a single-family residence prior to the City's incorporation. As noted in the grading findings, the proposed grading outside of the construction of the residence and access is minimal and will follow the contours of the existing land, with the exception of one small area (less than 10% of the lot area) in the south side yard where a 6'-0" tall retaining wall will be located. 8. The project will not alter the course, carrying capacity or gradient of any natural watercourse or drainage course which can be calculated to over one hundred cubic feet per second once in every ten years. The project is not located within a flood zone and will be reviewed by the Building and Safety Division to ensure that drainage does not affect other properties. Furthermore, there is no water body spring or related natural spreading area of greater than one acre. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 6of13 Attachments 3-13 C. The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies. Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed in the Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The subject property was previously developed with a single-family residential dwelling and ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and is zoned for residential use. The property is listed as a potential area for archaeological and paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" will be required to be reported immediately to the Community Development Director and are to be first offered to the City for preservation. Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. · The proposed residence is located on a legal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home with a 16'/30' building height envelope. The project is not located within a view corridor as designated by the Coastal Specific Plan of the City. Furthermore, the project has been designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West by providing a large front yard setback and ridgeline below what could be building "by-right" on a downsloping lot. Furthermore, the property is located just south of a large open space area that provides ocean views for pedestrians and drivers along Palos Verdes Drive West. Construction of a new home on the previously developed property would not significantly affect the ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the applicant is grading down to accommodate the construction of the residence and following the natural contours to grade the yard areas within the front and rear yard of the home. Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1 )(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting "' forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following February 11, 2104, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 7of13 Attachments 3-14 Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 ), which is consistent with the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350, to allow the construction of a new, two-story single-family home and associated grading and retaining walls, located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11 1h day of February 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nelson and Vice Chairman Leon NOES: Commissioner Tetreault ABSTENTIONS: None David Emenhiser Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 8of13 Attachments 3-15 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REVISION TO GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2012-00141 (Khosla, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to 7. revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no furt~er effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 9of13 Attachments 3-16 requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 11. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 25% lot coverage (24.9% proposed). 13. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20' front (59'-1%" proposed to residence), 15' rear (71'-7%" proposed), 5' north side (21'-5%" proposed to residence) and 5' east side (10'-0" proposed). BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 14. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 15. A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance. 16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56. 030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 18. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 10of13 Attachments 3-17 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood-burning devices. 24. This approval is for a 10,382 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and a 977 square- foot 4-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 25. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the City the elevation above sea level of the "viewing station" as defined by California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350. Said elevation shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. 26. The maximum main ridgeline of the approved project is 272.50'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. The peak of the two circular covered patios at the front of the residence shall not exceed an elevation of 272.85' Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the lowest finished floor elevation of 247.239' and lowest finished grade elevation adjacent to the structure elevation as 246.90'. The overall ridgeline of this residence shall be subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the conditions stipulated in Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350. 27. If at any time in the future, the California Coastal Commission deletes Sections B or C of Special Condition No. 2 of the California Coastal Commission's Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350, the City's Community Development Director shall ensure that the residence shall not extend higher into the ocean view than as depicted on the photograph referred to in Special Condition No. 2(8). 28. The proposed chimney(s) may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 29. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy. 30. This approval includes a total of 3,980 cubic yards of grading (3,884 cubic yards of cut and 96 cubic yards of fill. 31. The following three (3) retaining walls are approved: a. b. c. A downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard ranging in height from 2'-0'' to 3'- 0" in overall height. A 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall locat~d adjacent to the proposed driveway A 3'-0" to 6'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located along the south side property line All other planter walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 2'-11" and shall be located at least 3'-0" from any other walls. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 11of13 Attachments 3-18 32. The applicant shall provide and maintain landscaping to screen the 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall. All landscaping shall be installed and approved by the Director prior to final on the building permit for the residence. 33. The property owner shall comply with Chapter 15.34 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Documentation Package as defined by Chapter 15.34. Said package shall be reviewed by the City's landscaping consultant and approved by the Community Development Director. The Landscape Documentation Package shall be prepared and signed by a landscape architect, landscape designer, or irrigation designer, as appropriate, except that the soil management report shall be prepared by a qualified soil and plan laboratory. The .applicant is responsible for paying for the review by the City's Landscape Consultant. 34. The property owner shall be prohibited from the use of herbicides to control or kill vegetation. 35. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property. The survey results shall be provided to the Community Development Director or his/her designee for review prior to grading permit issuance. 36. If the results of the Phase 1 archaeological survey identify the potential existence of archaeological and/or paleontological resources, prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. Qualifications of the archaeologist and paleontologist shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Community Development Director. All archaeological and paleontological finds shall be first offered to the City for preservation. 37. The applicant shall not use any portion of the proposed residence as a second dwelling unit without obtaining the appropriate Planning and Building Permits. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the new residence, a covenant shall be recorded with the country recorder as a covenant running with the land prohibiting the use of a second dwelling unit without further planning review and approval. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation, and shall prohibit the use of more than one cooking facility on the property unless approval of a Second Dwelling Unit is approved by the Community Development Department. A cooking facility includes a stove, oven, range, or any other built-in appliance related to food preparation. 38. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide a hydrology study prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall include ~ detail drainage conveyance system, including applicable on-site, off-site, and street flows, which will allow the building site to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff from the roadway which may be expected from all storms, up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 12of13 Attachments 3-19 39. All damaged curb and gutter, sidewalk, trails, and asphalt in front of the proposed home must be removed and replaced in kind to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 40. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City's NPDES consultant shall review and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project site. 41. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. 42. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, prior to final certificate of use and occupancy, the following items shall be addressed: a) All existing improvements in the PROW adjacent to the subject location (Coastal Trail Improvements) must be protected in place and/or restored to a condition of new as a result of the project. b) Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in reviewing the construction plans and issuance of a public works encroachment permit. c) No above-ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way d) All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach (minimum 2 feet away from the driveway edge) e) Only cement concrete allowed for driveway extension into the public right of way. f) Proposed driveway approach must be constructed in accordance with APWA Std. Plan 110-0 and the City's requirements. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-09 Page 13 of 13 Attachments 3-20 P.C. Staff Report (February 11, 2014) Attachments 3-21 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2014 SUBJECT: REVISION TO GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141); PROJECT ADDRESS: 3344 PALSO VERDES DRIVE WEST; PROPERTY OWNER: KHOSLA Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Plann~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby approving a Revision to a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012-00141) associated with the construction of a new 10,382 square foot residence with a 977 square foot garage, 3,884 cubic yards of cut, 96 cubic yards of fill, and associated retaining and garden walls. BACKGROUND On September 25, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Case No. ZON2012-00141 (6-1, with Commissioner Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting) and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 (attached). The decision conditionally approved a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage on a vacant, downslope lot located at 3344 Palos Verde Drive West. The project included a total of 2,988 cubic yards of excavation, 218 cubic yards of fill, and retaining walls associated with the development of the property. The Planning Commission approved the project with the following justifications (as summarized) to make the required findings for the subject application: ... a) The Site Plan Review could be approved because the proposed project complies with the City's required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable height limitations for a downslope lot, as presented in the RPV Development Code for the RS-2, single-family residential zoning district. b) The Grading Permit could be approved because the proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the vacant lot with a maximum ridgeline of 276. 73'. Furthermore, the Planning Commission concluded that requiring the applicant to reduce the overall ridgeline of the proposed residence by almost 9', to a maximum height of Attachments 3-22 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page2 268.75', as encouraged by the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) to minimize view impacts from Palos Verdes Drive West, would require, at minimum, an additional 3,456 cubic yards of grading and would not meet the grading criterion and would be considered excessive. c) The Coastal Permit could be approved because the subject property is not located within a specific visual corridor of the LCP; the Development Code allows a home to be constructed within a 16'/30' building envelope with a maximum ridgeline of 279.0', however the proposed residence is designed below the maximum allowable height, at an elevation of 276.73' to minimize view impacts from Palos Verdes Drive West, as encouraged by the City's LCP; the project includes a 50'-0" front yard setback (minimum 20'-0" required by code); the project was designed to grade the site to provide a single-story fac.;:ade as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West, and requiring the applicant to further grade to accommodate a maximum ridgeline of 268. 75' would be excessive. On September 26, 2012, a City "Notice of the Decision" (attached) memorializing the Planning Commission's decision was mailed to the applicant, all interested parties who submitted comments or provided testimony at the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The Notice of Decision described the approved project and applicable Coastal Permit findings, and noted a fifteen (15) day appeal period for any interested party to appeal the project to the City Council. The appeal period expired on October 10, 2012. No appeal was filed with the City. On October 16, 2012, after all City appeal periods were exhausted and pursuant to RPV Municipal Code Section 17.72.070(E), the City provided a notice of its final action ("Notice of Final Decision') by first-class mail to the California Coastal Commission and interested parties. The October 16, 2012 Notice of Final Decision concluded that the project was in the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, pursuant to the maps available at City Hall. On October 29, 2012, the California Coastal Commission sent the City a "Notice of Deficient Notice" (attached), noting that the subject property was located in an appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, not a non-appealable area. The Coastal Commission's notice stated that the City's action was suspended and the Coastal Commission's appeal period would not commence until a sufficient notice of action was received. On December 10, 2012, following multiple conversations between the City Staff, Coastal Commission Staff, the City Attorney and the Applicant, the City reissued a Notice of Final Decision (attached) noting that the project was located within the appealable area of the City's Coastal ·Specific Plan District. The notice included the procedures for appeal of the City's local decision (Planning Commission approval) to the Coastal Commission. Subsequently, the Coastal "' Commission provided a "Notice of Appeal Period" (attached) which noted that the Coastal Commission appeal period expired on December 27, 2012. On January 2, 2013, the City received notice that the proposed project was appealed within a timely manner, on December 27, 2013, by two (2) Coastal Commissioners (Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner Shallenberger) noting concerns that the proposed project raises an issue as to the consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Specifically, the Coastal Commission had concerns that the approved project would have a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available from Palos Verdes Drive West across the vacant, residential project site, and that the City did not consider other feasible design alternatives to reduce potential visual impacts as seen from Palos Verdes Drive Attachments 3-23 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 3 West. Between January 2013 and September 2013, the applicant discussed potential design modifications to the project with the Coastal Commission Staff in an attempt to address the view impact concerns raised in the Coastal Commission's appeal. Ultimately, as a result of these discussions, the applicant and Coastal Commission Staff agreed upon a revised project design that would allow the Coastal Commission to withdraw its appeal. In an effort to address the Coastal Commission Staff's concerns with the project, the applicant submitted a revised project to the City which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2013 (5-2, with Commissioners Tetreault and Emenhiser dissenting). The Planning Commission's decision on the revised project was subsequently appealed to the City Council by a number of City residents. On November 5, 2013, Staff received a letter of withdrawal from the applicant stating that they were formally withdrawing the revised project that was approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2013. They noted that they were instead going to move forward with their original application that was before the California Coastal Commission on appeal from the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission approval. As a result, the October 8, 2013 Planning Commission decision on the revised project became null and void, and the appeal hearing before the City Council could not occur. It is important to note that a letter was sent to the appellants on November 6, 2013, informing them of the recent withdrawal and their rights to be able to submit comments and/or attend the Coastal Hearing on the project. On December 12, 2013, the California Coastal Commission, at their Coastal Hearing, made a determination that the proposed project raised a "substantial issue" and therefore brought forth a de novo hearing of the appeal of the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission decision. A full account of the California Coastal Commission substantial issue and de novo appeal Staff report and record are attached for the Planning Commission's reference. In summary, as a result of reviewing the merits of the project, the California Coastal Commission required the applicant to reduce the height of the maximum ridgeline of the residence to an elevation of 272.50'. The California Coastal Commission also imposed specific conditions of approval that relate to the landscaping proposed to be installed and maintained throughout the property. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes received the California Coastal Commission's Notification of Final Appeal Action (attached) on January 3, 2014. The California Coastal Commission imposed specific conditions on the Coastal Development Permit and can be reviewed in the attached Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit (received from the California Coastal Commission on January 10, 2014). It is important to note that the California Coastal Commission approved the same project that the Planning Commission approved at the October 8, 2013 Planning Commission hearing, with clarifications/modifications to the conditions of approval prepared by the Planning Commission at that meeting. After receiving the Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit from the California Coastal Commission, the City scheduled a public hearing to make the City's permits (Grading Permit and Site Plan Review) ··' conform to the project approved by the California Coastal Commission. This is because while the California Coastal Commission ruled on the Coastal Development Permit, the California Coastal , Commission did not rule on the associated Grading Permit or Site Plan Review applications. Therefore, on January 20, 2014, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, interested parties and the California Coastal Commission, providing a 15- day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns related to the grading permit and site plan review application. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 23, 2014. Staff received the attached two (2) emails from Sunshine, property owner at 6 Limetree Lane, requesting information related to the project. Attachments 3-24 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page4 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION As discussed in the Background Section of this report, the project before the Planning Commission that is the subject of this report, is a revised project from the project approved by the Planning Commission on September 25, 2012. As also described above, the project previously came before the Planning Commission and was approved as a "revision" at its October 8, 2013 meeting, before being withdrawn by the applicant. Given that the California Coastal Commission approved the same revised project at its December 12, 2013 Coastal Hearing, the analysis that was prepared and approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2013, has remained the same. As such, Staff has outlined the same proposed changes to the project that affect the City's Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications below. Proposed Modifications as a result of the California Coastal Commission Approval of the Coastal Development Permit Outlined in Table 1 below are a number of minor revisions to the Planning Commission's September 25, 2012 approval, which resulted from an approval of a modified project by the California Coastal Commission. Specifically, the front yard setback as measured from Palos Verdes Drive West, has increased over 17'-0", from the previously approved front yard setback of 42'-0", to a revised 59'-1 %" setback. As a result of increasing the front yard setback and slightly redesigning the main ridgeline, the overall height of the residence decreased from 14'-5%" to 9'-6'', with a new main ridgeline elevation of 272.50'. In addition to siting the residence further away from Palos Verdes Drive West, the applicant slightly lowered the lowest finished grade elevation from 249.572' to a new lowest finished grade elevation of 246.90'. As a result of relocating the residence further downslope on the subject property, the topography of the property necessitated an additional 896 cubic yards of cut, and a reduction in the overall fill by 122 cubic yards. There were slight modifications made to the retaining walls and garden walls which surround the new development in order to maintain the same overall site design. As a result, the only retaining wall that increased in height was a small portion of the south side retaining wall which was previously approved at a maximum height 5'-0" and is currently proposed at heights ranging from 3'-0" to 6'-0" in height. As the project will result in additional export from the subject site, Staff requested that Public Works review the project again. As a result of the additional review, a number of conditions of approval related to Public Works review are now proposed (see Condition Nos. 36 - 40 in the attached Draft Resolution). It should be noted that these conditions of approval are common for new residences and are typically captured during the Building and Safety Plan Check process. Table 1: Project Statistics CODE P .C. APPROVED P.C. APPROVED CRITERIA REQUIREMENT PROJECT (9-25-12) (10/8/13), CCC APPROVED & REVISED PROJECT Lot Size 20,000 s.f. 43,546 No change Structure Size N/A 10,382 s.f. No change Garage 1,027 s.f 977 s.f. Attachments 3-25 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 5 CODE CRITERIA REQUIREMENT Setbacks Front: 1st floor 20'-0" Side (north) 5'-0" Side (south) 5'-0" Rear 15'-0" Lot Coverage(%) 25% (square feet) (10,886.5 s.f.) Enclosed Parking 3 spaces Outdoor Parking 3 spaces Structure Height Average elevation of the front yard 16' setback line to the hiqhest ridgeline. Lowest grade adjacent to the 30' building foundation/slab. Grading P.C. Approval Req. >1,000 C.Y. Excavation N/A Fill N/A TOTAL N/A Retaining Walls Driveway NIA Front (Upslope) N/A South Side N/A (Upslope) Rear (Downslope) N/A P.C. APPROVED P.C. APPROVED PROJECT (9-25-12) (10/8/13), CCC APPROVED & REVISED PROJECT 42'-0" 59'-1%" 25' -0" to residence 21'-5%" to residence 10'-9" 10'-0" 92'-0" 71 '-7%" 24.9% 24.9% (10,853 s.f.) (10,864 s.f.) 4 spaces No chanqe 3+ spaces No change 14'-5%'' 9'-6" (ridgeline elevation (ridgeline elevation 276.73') 272.50') 24'-6%" 25'-8" 2,988 C.Y. 3,884 C.Y. 218 C.Y. 96C.Y. 3,206 C.Y. 3,980 C.Y. 5'-0" No change 3'-6" Under 3'-0" 5'-0" 3'-0" to 6'-0" 1'-0" to 3'-6" 2'-0" to 3'-0" CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS OF GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW As noted above, the applicant has maintained a majority of the site design that was previously approved by the Planning Commission in September 2012, but slightly relocated the residence on the existing property. These minor revisions resulted in a design that mitigates the Coastal Commission's concerns with views from Palos Verdes Drive West, as noted in their December 12, 2103 Staff Report and Notice of Intent to Issue Permit (attached). Staff has reviewed the revised project and continues to recommend Planning Commission adoption of all the required findings for the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit applications. A brief analysis of the Site Plan Review application and required Grading Permit criterion are discussed below. Attachments 3-26 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page6 Site Plan Review As described in Table 1 under the Revised Project Description section of this report, Staff has determined that the proposed 10,382 square foot new residence, 977 square foot garage, pool/spa and other ancillary improvements within the rear yard (trellis, firepit, BBQ, covered entry structure) would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zone. Specifically, the new residence has been redesigned to provide larger setbacks that far-exceed the minimum required 20- foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setback. Further, the project will meet the maximum allowable lot coverage of 25% (24.9% proposed). As the project meets all the required development standards for a single-family residence on a downsloping residential lot, provided the Planning Commission continues to find the new residence to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as discussed under Grading Criterion No. 5 below, Staff would continue to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review. Grading Permit In order to approve the revised Grading Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that the request meets all nine criteria as set forth in Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. These criteria are listed below in bold type, with staff's analysis of each criterion in normal type. 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code. Municipal Code Section No. 17.96 defines the permitted primary use in the RS-1 zone as single- family residential. Staff believes that the grading related to the revised project that was approved by the California Coastal Commission is necessary to accommodate the residence in a revised location on the vacant lot. The applicant initially explored different designs and locations of the proposed residence by working with neighbors, City Staff, the Planning Commission and later on with the California Coastal Commission. The revised location of the home, as described above, was determined to protect views of the Pacific Ocean horizon line as seen from a standing position described under Special Condition No. 2 of the CCC Notice of Intent to Issue Permit (attached) while also maintaining a single-story appearance from Palos Verdes Drive West. As a result, a considerable amount of grading is being proposed to accommodate a residence that is sited lower on the downsloping lot and farther from the front property line. The proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the revised location of the new residence and improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot. A total of 3,884 cubic yards of cut will be conducted on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas. More specifically, 1, 737 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the · new residence, 679 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway, 237 cubic yards of cut to create a level courtyard at the front of the residence, and 1,231 cubic yards of cut at the rear of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal amount of dirt (96 cubic yards) within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, it appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable yard area. For these reasons, Staff is able to support this grading criterion. Attachments 3-27 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 7 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8), is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre-construction (existing grade). A total of three (3) retaining walls are proposed around the property, in addition to other garden walls that are below 3'-0" in height. Two (2) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. One retaining wall will reach a height of 5'-0" and will be located adjacent to the proposed driveway. The second upslope retaining wall will range from 3'-0" to 6'-0" in height located along the south side property line. A third retaining wall will reach a maximum height of 3'-0" in the rear yard of the property. Although the height of the rear yard retaining wall is minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure, due to the fact that the applicant is excavating beneath the new residence, the finished grade will ultimately be lowered with a lowest finished grade elevation of 246.90'. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have been built in the same location. Thus, this criterion can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The majority of the applicant's requested grading is for excavation to accommodate the new residence, driveway and useable rear yard area. The applicant is also proposing to construct three (3) retaining walls as described in Grading Criterion #2 above. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence and vehicular access in their respective revised locations. Outside of the grading required for the construction of the residence, the contours of the driveway, front yard and rear yard will generally follow the existing contours found on the property. More specifically, the majority of the driveway will be graded to follow the existing contours with the exception of the last 1 /3 of the driveway providing access to the garage. The majority of the rear yard has a slight slope. In order to create a flat yard area, the applicant is proposing to grade the rear yard whereby the proposed retaining walls will generally follow the existing contours. As such, this criterion can be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservatipn of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. As noted previously, the majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope that alters the existing topography is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and slope surrounding , .. Attachments 3-28 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 8 the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot and the proposed new contours throughout the property take into account the preservation and natural topographical features and appearance by blending the slopes into the natural terrain. As such, Staff feels that this criterion has been met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. Municipal Code Section 17.02.030(B)(1)(a) requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis whenever a new residence is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot. The Planning Commission previously approved the compatibility of the residence as it relates to the immediate neighborhood with a 10,382 square foot home and 1,027 square foot garage. Even though the revised project results in a structure that is 50 square feet less than what was previously approved, a revised Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was completed indicating the revised square footage for a 10,382 square foot residence and 977 square foot garage. The Municipal Code defines neighborhood character to include: a) the scale of surrounding residences, b) architectural styles and materials of the surrounding area, and c) the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.02.040(A)(6), "neighborhood character" is defined as encompassing the following three project characteristics (RPVDC language is boldface, followed by Staffs analysis in normal type): a. Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the twenty (20) nearest properties. The table below summarizes the properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood, which serve as the basis for the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility and Analysis Matrix 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West 44, 188 5,005* 1 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West 48,684 ~2,819* 2 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West 43, 760 3,654 1 30335 Palos Verdes Drive West 46,448 6,653 2 6 Marguerite Drive 50,565 11,318 2 7 Marguerite Drive 87, 126 8,760 2 24 Marguerite Drive 41,353 8,853* 1 57 Marguerite Drive 43,899 5,350 2 63 Marguerite Drive 43,642 8,478 2 67 Marguerite Drive 43,658 7,364 1 71 Marguerite Drive 55,080 6,936 1 75 Marguerite Drive 58,185 6,678 1 79 Marguerite Drive 50,310 7,039 1 83 Marguerite Drive 46,664 7,097* 1 73 Laurel Drive 26,981 7, 100 2 77 Laurel Drive 22,207 10,360 2 Attachments 3-29 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 9 85 Laurel Drive 21,456 9,100 2 89 Laurel Drive 20,613 7,826 2 93 Laurel Drive 20,395 5,624 2 97 Laurel Drive 29,557 7,664 2 Average 42,238 7,494 3344 Palos Existing 0 vacant Verdes Drive Proposed 43,546 11,359 2 West • The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department. A 360 square foot garage was assigned to residences under 5,000 square feet in livable area and a 540 square foot garage was assigned to residences above 5,000 square feet in livable area. As noted in the table above, the homes in the neighborhood range in size from 3,654 square feet to 12,819 square feet, with the average home size being 7,494 square feet (habitable plus non-habitable square footage). While the square footage of the revised residence is considerably larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the revised residence (11,359 square feet) will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). Therefore, although large, Staff is of the opinion that the revised residence will continue to be within the range of neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the character, style and setting of the neighborhood. b. Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials. The overall architectural design of the revised project has remained since the Planning Commission's September 25, 2012 approval of the new residence. The bulk and mass of the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side Marguerite Drive. As such, the orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the architectural styles of homes found in the immediate neighborhood, especially along Marguerite Drive, are eclectic. Although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, Staff continues to feel that the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. For example, the applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fa9ade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents in order to break up the appearance of the bulk and mass of the new structure. More specifically, the residence was designed with multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustr~des, decorative clay tiles and first and second story accent molding. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. c. Front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. As noted above, the revised project will provide large setbacks from the front, sides and rear property lines and would therefore maintain the integrity of setbacks observed throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Attachments 3-30 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 10 Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that the construction of a new 10,382 square foot residence with a 977 square foot garage would produce a residence that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. This proposal is not a new residential tract; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements, therefore, this criterion does not apply. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. Natural landscape is usually considered wild flowers, low coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands. Based on the City's NCCP vegetation maps, there is no evidence of natural landscape or sensitive wildlife habitat on the subject property, which is a developed lot in a single-family residential neighborhood. As such, the proposed project would not result in excessive or unnecessary removal of sensitive vegetation. 9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard. With the exception of a small portion of grading associated with the new driveway, a majority of the grading will not be conducted on an extreme slope. The subject property was legally subdivided prior to November 25, 1975. As such, the proposed grading (cut and fill) is permitted and meets this criterion. Finished slope contours The Municipal Code limits the contours offinished slopes to no greaterthan 35%. The proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot. No finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. As such, the proposal meets this · standard. Cut or fill on a slope exceeds 50% The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. As such, this grading criterion can be met. Attachments 3-31 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 11 Excavation exceeding a depth of 5 feet The code states that an excavation shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet except where the Planning Commission determines that certain circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. A majority of the proposed grading outside of the structure footprint will not exceed a depth of 5 feet. The construction of the residence, however and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-11' in order to accommodate the residence. If the applicant did not provide an 8-foot step in the design of the downslope residence, the applicant would be required to apply for a Variance to deviate from the development code requirement to provide an 8-foot step in the design of the residence. As such, Staff continues to be of the opinion that the proposed excavation that exceeds 5 feet in depth is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and this grading criterion can be met. Height of retaining walls The Development Code allows one 3'-6" tall retaining wall located within a side yard setback and one 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall anywhere on the property. Additionally, the code allows one downslope/upslope retaining wall, not to exceed a maximum height of 5'-0", to be located adjacent to a driveway. The project proposal includes one 3'-0" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, and a 3'-0" -6'- 0" tall upslope retaining along the south side of the property. The project meets this criterion for a 5'-0" tall retaining wall located adjacent to the driveway and the 3'-0" tall downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard. The 3'-0" -6'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located within the south side yard exceeds the code-allowed height of 3'-6" and therefore does not meet the code criterion for side yard retaining walls. As noted above, the applicant is proposing one (1) retaining wall that exceeds the grading criterion for residential lots. However, the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a Grading Permit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following four findings can be adopted: a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) have been met. As noted in the discussion above, Staff's opinion is that all eight criteria are being met; therefore, staff feels that this finding can be adopted. b) The second finding is that the request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No. 17. 76.040. ,. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan." By allowing the deviations in the grading standards, the applicant is able to provide an upslope retaining wall along the south side yard to support the proposed location of the residence as approved by the California Coastal Commission. Allowing deviations in the grading standards allows the applicant to construct an upslope retaining wall to accommodate a walkway along the south side of the residence to provide access from the Attachments 3-32 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 12 front of the property to the rear. Some of the other properties in the neighborhood also exhibit short retaining walls to support planting areas, walkways, courtyards and useable front/rear yards while supporting the slopes that exist behind them. Further, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the new retaining wall would not be easily seen from the public right-of-way or neighboring properties. As such, Staff believes this finding can be adopted. c) The third finding is that approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is inundated with hillside properties that grade to utilize retaining walls that support slopes and planting areas. The subject property is a hillside property with a gentle slope that descends from the public right-of-way to the rear yard. With the exception of the new driveway, the applicant has limited the grading and retaining walls to areas on the property that do not have an extreme slope (35% or greater). As retaining walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood, and the proposed retaining walls that deviate from the grading criterion will support the construction of a new residence and useable yard areas, Staff feels this finding can be adopted. d) The final finding is that departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a preliminary soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls. The applicant will be required to obtain final approval of the soil engineering report prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, will be required that the structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code. These aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the grading standards. Further, deviation from the standards would allow the property owner the ability to stabilize the property surrounding the new residence. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the structural aspect of the structure and the retaining walls. With these provisions the proposed deviations will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project; therefore Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the Planning Commission approved the proposed project and deviations from the grading standards, Staff will be sending a copy of the Notice of Decision and associated Resolution to the following property owners: 1) Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association I 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2) Stiassni Family I 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 3) Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab I 7 416 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Ultimately, all four findings can be made and the proposed project, which is in excess of that normally permissible under subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, can be approved. Attachments 3-33 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 13 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Comments: As a result of the public notice for the February 11, 2014 Planning Commission hearing on the revised project located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Staff received two emails (attached) from Sunshine, property owner at 6 Limetree, within the Portuguese Bend Club. Sunshine's main comments do not portray a rejection or approval behind the design of the project, but instead request clarification of the process and authority of the City in reviewing the Coastal Development Permit associated with this project. A response to Sunshine's questions related to the administrative role of the City with this permit is included in the email. Additionally, Staff has provided in further detail a discussion of the Planning Commission's authority to rule on this project below. Planning Commission's authority on the review of the City's Permits (Grading Permit and Site Plan Review): As stated above, the Coastal Commission took jurisdiction over the coastal permit and rendered a final decision on the height of the structure that can be constructed on the property by establishing the maximum ridge height. Accordingly, the City cannot alter the coastal permit or deviate from the Coastal Commission's decision, and the Planning Commission needs to ensure that the two permits over which the City still has jurisdiction, the grading permit and site plan review, do not conflict with the coastal permit that the Coastal Commission approved. Since the Coastal Commission established the maximum ridge height of the structure, questions have been asked about whether the Planning Commission can lower the grade below the level that was shown on the plans that were presented to and approved by the Coastal Commission. On the one hand, it can be argued that lowering the grade even more does not conflict with the Coastal Commission's decision, because the Coastal Commission approved a maximum ridge height. Accordingly, a lower grade, which would result in a corresponding reduction of the ridge height, should comply with the Coastal Commission's decision. On the other hand, it can be argued that the Coastal Commission looked carefully at the entire project and its impact on coastal views and determined the height of the structure that would comply with the provisions of the City's Local Coastal Plan and the objectives of the Coastal Act. Thus, it can be argued that if the Planning Commission were to lower the pad height to a different elevation, such a decision would not be in full compliance with the Coastal Commission's decision because the plans approved by the City would be different from the plans that were approved by the Coastal Commission. ,.. Both of these arguments are credible; thus, it cannot"be predicted with certainty how a court would rule regarding this issue, if the City's decision were challenged in court. By ensuring that the grading permit and the site plan review are completely consistent with the Coastal Commission's decision any argument about inconsistency has been eliminated. This is the course of action that provides the least legal risk to the City. Ability to Appeal the Planning Commission Decision Any interested person aggrieved by the Planning Commission's decision may appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to the City Council. Pursuant to Attachments 3-34 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 14 Section 17.02.040(C)(1 )(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee ($2,275), no later than fifteen (15) days following the date the Planning Commission's final decision on the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. Due to the fact that this request no longer includes the Coastal Development Permit, the appeal fees are not automatically waived. Proposed Conditions: In approving the revised project on appeal, the California Coastal Commission imposed a number of conditions of approval on the Coastal Development Permit that are under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission to enforce. As such, Staff will not be including those conditions within the City's planning entitlements. However, given the importance of the conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission related to a maximum ridgeline as viewed from a specific viewing station, Staff is proposing that conditions of approval be imposed on the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review that identifies the required elevations for the finished floor, lowest finished grade and highest ridgeline of the proposed residence, along with the elevation of the viewing station. These elevations will be required to be certified by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer and may be used by the Coastal Commission Staff to ensure compliance with the conditions stipulated -in the California Coastal Commission Costal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350. Foliage Analysis: As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. After conducting a foliage analysis of the subject project, Staff found that there are no trees located on the subject property that would significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another property. Environmental Analysis: Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)(new construction; single-family residence) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the construction of a 10,382 square foot single-family residence and 977 square foot garage in a residential zone. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. Conceptual Trails Plan: The subject property is located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West. According to the City's Conceptual Trails Plan, a portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail is located within the adjoining right- of-way of Palos Verdes Drive West. The portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail that is located in front of the subject property is referred to as the Christmas Tree Cove Segment. The specific course trail segment begins on Palos Verdes Drive West at the City's border with Palos Verdes Estates and continues on the western side of the road to a point just north of the southern boundary of the Lunada Point development. This trail is designated for pedestrian/equestrian use and falls under Category Ill of the City's Conceptual Trail Plan, meaning the trail is located within the City's PVDW right-of-way. The Conceptual Trail Plan indicates that implementation of this trail segment should be funded with grants or by outside agencies. Coincidently, this trail segment was pursued as part of a recent grant funded by the State of California for completion of the City's Coastal Trail. A portion of this trail has been improved with decomposed granite directly in front of the subject property, with the exception of the existing driveway. When the new driveway is built, it will blend seamlessly with the existing trail, not including materials or color schemes. As such, the applicant will be prevented ... Attachments 3-35 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 15 from constructing any improvements in the public right-of-way other than the driveway approach that could interfere with the trail. A condition of approval to this affect has been included in the attached Resolution. Overlay Control Districts: The subject property is listed in the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1), Socio-cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) and Urban appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) as outlined in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Overlay control districts provide criterion which further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by the proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the City. These areas have been defined by the general plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique characteristics contributing to the city's form, appearance, natural setting, and historical and cultural heritage. Staff reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the performance criterion listed in Chapter 17.40 and found that the project complies with all related criterion in the Natural Overlay Control District, Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District, and Urban Appearance Overlay Control District as summarized by bullet points below: Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) • The project will not alter the course, carrying capacity or gradient of any natural watercourse or drainage course which can be calculated to over one hundred cubic feet per second once in every ten years. The project is not located within a flood zone and will be reviewed by the Building and Safety Division to ensure that drainage does not affect other properties. Furthermore, there is no water body spring or related natural spreading area of greater than one acre. • The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property, and the development will not be located within 50 feet of a drainage course. • The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan, NPDES approval and grading approval, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies, while ensuring that the soil stability is maintained. Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) • The subject property was previously developed with a single-family residential dwelling and ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any ... significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and is zoned for residential use. The property is listed as a potential area for archaeological and paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" will be required to be reported immediately to the Community Development Director and are to be first offered to the City for preservation. Attachments 3-36 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 16 Urban Overlay Control District (OC-3) • The proposed residence is located on a legal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home. The project would result in a change in elevation of land or construction of improvement that would block, alter or impair a major view, vista or viewshed in existence from designated view corridors, view sites or view points that exist at the date of adoption of the general plan and the coastal specific plan. The applicant is proposing to lower the grade of the project to accommodate a view of the horizon line of the Pacific Ocean as seen from a public trail along Palos Verdes Drive West, as approved by the California Coastal Commission. • The project would not be removing any structural or natural focal points as defined and designated in the General Plan. • The project complies with the Grading Criterion outlined in Section 17.76.040 of the Cities Development Code, thereby ensuring that the mass and finish grading do not significantly alter the natural land forms of the property. Additionally, as required by the California Coastal Commission, the applicant has increased the quantity of grading to develop a residence on a hillside lot that meets the City's Development Code standards, without affecting the appearance-of the natural topography of the land. The applicant will be regarding the front of the property, which is currently an extreme slope, to reduce the slope to less than 35%. • The applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan that is reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission with plan materials that are appropriate and compatible with the visual, climatic, soil and ecological characteristics of the City and Coastal Zone without requiring excessive water. Permit Streamlining Act: On January 9, 2014, Staff received a phone call and email from the applicant requesting the required revision to their Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications that was necessitated by the California Coastal Commission's decision on the Coastal Development Permit for the new residence. Staff informed the applicant that a Revision to their original Planning Commission decision could not be processed until the City received the appropriate documentation from the California Coastal Commission that a decision was rendered and the City could move forward with the formal revision request. The Coastal Commission Staff informed the City that the revision could not be processed until the California Coastal Commission Notice of Intent to Issue Permit was prepared and received by the City. On January 10, 2014, a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit from the California Coastal Commission was received. As the application had not changed from the October 8, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, Staff was able to deem the project complete for processing and schedule the public hearing. As such, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the decision deadline for the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review is March 11, 2014. CONCLUSION Based on a review of Staff's previous analysis, and the Planning Commission's previous approval, Staff is able to support the applicant's request for a Revision to the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) as Staff believes that all the necessary findings for approval can still be made. Specifically, Staff believes that the changes to the project create no new impacts and .~·· Attachments 3-37 Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 17 the project continues to meet the required development code standards as it relates to setbacks, lot coverage and grading. The proposed revisions submitted to the City are consistent with the California Coastai Commission's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and approve the revisions submitted by the applicant and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed revision, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Revision to the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. Attachments: • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ • Public Comment Letters • California Coastal Commission Notice of Intent to Issue Permit (Received 01-10-14) • Coastal Commission Notification of Final Appeal Action (Received 01-03-14) • Coastal Commission Staff Report for 12-12-13 Coastal Appeal Hearing • California Coastal Commission Correspondence Letters/Notices o Coastal Commission Staff Report for 12-12-13 Coastal Appeal Hearing o Letter agreeing to the proposed modifications (Received 09-17-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Appeal (Received 01-02-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Appeal Period (Received 12-19-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Deficient Notice (Received 11-01-12) • P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 (Approved 09-25-12) • September 25, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • September 25, 2012 P.C. Minutes • September 11, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • September 11, 2012 P.C. Minutes • August 14, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • August 14, 2012 P.C. Minutes • October 8, 2013 P.C. Staff Report (REVISED PROJECT WITHDRAWN) o October 8, 2013 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 (null and void due to withdrawal) o October 8, 2013 P.C. Minutes o October 8, 2013 Late Correspondence • Revised Project Plans Attachments 3-38 P.C. Minutes (February 11, 2014) Attachments 3-39 Vice Chairman Leon stated he would like to see the trees removed, if possible, as opposed to a condition to trim. He also stated he would like to see the interior lighting limited to operation and maintenance hours. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2014 as requested by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without exception. 4. Revision to Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012- 00141 ): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a history of the project that was first heard by the Planning Commission in 2012. She explained that what is before the Planning Commission is the grading permit and site plan review, which are the City's planning entitlements associated with the California Coastal Commission's coastal development permit. She stated that, as noted throughout the staff report and much of the correspondence, the coastal development permit is under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission and the grading permit and site plan review are before the Planning Commission in order to synchronize the modifications made by the applicant and approved by the California Coastal Commission with the City's last approved project in September 2012. As such, the applicant is requesting a revision to the grading permit and site plan review, and discussed the proposed revisions. She stated that staff was able to make the required findings to recommend approval of the grading permit, and felt the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As such, staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed revisions as detailed and conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Nelson stated that he has voted in favor of this project twice in the past, authored two letters to the Coastal Commission in favor of the project, and felt he could participate in this hearing without prejudice. Vice Chairman Leon noted numerous correspondence with respect to the height of the project and the loss of the view as driving down Palos Verdes Drive. He asked staff if it was in the Commission's purview to request further grading to reduce the pad height. .Associate Planner Mikhail stated the Commission could request or require the grade elevations be lowered, in effect lowering the ridgeline, however there are some arguments relating to having the project synchronized with the coastal development permit as it is currently proposed versus requiring further modifications. She noted the City Attorney has stated she is unsure how a court would rule given the various arguments involved on either side. In order to maintain consistency, the City Attorney recommended the Planning Commission synchronize the two applications. Director Rojas agreed it is within the Commission's purview to ask the grade be lowered, as there is a grading permit application before the Commission. He explained the City Attorney has some concern that the applicant can argue that the Commission is Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 11 Attachments 3-40 now interfering with the Coastal Commission's decision, and it was her opinion that if the Planning Commission approves the Grading Permit so that it synchs with the coastal permit it would put the City at the least legal risk. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained this is the third review of this project by the Planning Commission and has now been approved by the Coastal Commission, and the project currently before the Commission is the exact project approved by the Coastal Commission, and asked that the Commission support the project as presented. He noted this is the same project that was before the Commission previously. He referred to the three large projects on the coastal side of Palos Verdes Drive that have been built, and stated that none of these projects met the two-degree down arc, and in fact in his research of Palos Verdes Drive, there is not one single family residential project that has a two degree down arc. He stated that the Coastal Commission agreed, and asked him to provide a horizon view over the top of the proposed building, and felt this was consistent with their LCP. Ravi Khosla (owner) stated he was available to answer any questions. Shamita Khosla asked the Planning Commission to allow her to build this home. Raju Chhabra stated he was in support of the project. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Tetreault stated he had concerns about the process, as it is quite unique. He thought it was interesting that in 2012 the Coastal Commission appealed this project to themselves, on their own initiative, and found the City was not in keeping with our own Development Code and not following our own rules with respect to preserving views over the property with the proposal that was before the City at that time. With respect to the opinion given by the City Attorney, he understood what she was saying, however he respectfully disagreed with the opinion that the Commission needs to synchronize with the Coastal Commission. He agreed that it would be the safest way to go, but he did not think that means the Commission is powerless as a body to do something different, as the Planning Commission has the authority to apply our own Ordinances as long as what the Commission decides does not undercut the Coastal Commissions orders that restrict the scope of the applicant's project. He noted the Coastal Commission's ruling was not for the benefit of the applicant, but rather for the benefit of the public and as such the Planning Commission cannot do anything that would infringe upon the protections that were conferred in this order. He stated there was nothing inherit or implied in that decision that confers a right on the part of the applicant against the City. He stated that this current project has not been officially Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 12 ... Attachments 3-41 reviewed by the Planning Commission, as the revised plan from the previous Planning Commission meeting had been withdrawn. Therefore, he felt that even though the Planning Commission discussed the project at that meeting and passed a Resolution, that all went away and felt this meeting is the first legal time the Planning Commission is actually reviewing the project. He did not think the Coastal Commission would step in if there were a revised project with a lower roofline. He discussed the two degree down arc and the architect's statement that no other properties seaward of Palos Verdes Drive meet this requirement. He felt that when the City does not observe its own rules and make exceptions for people it may become difficult at some point to back away from those exceptions. He acknowledged the motion that was made, and stated he would like to have something considered as either clarification or an additional condition, that being that there are conflicting conditions with respect to the ridge height. He noted there are issues with respect to the distance to the viewing station that have to be worked out, and he assumed this will come back on Consent Calendar with specific numbers included. Director Rojas noted that there is a Resolution before the Commission, and if adopted it will not come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault felt it was very important to have the exact numbers representing the distance to the viewing station and the height of the ridge line included, as well as how much of the view is to be preserved. He stated there are conflicting height;;, noting that both the Planning Commission and Coastal Commission acknowledge a 272.5 foot high ridge line. He stated that is a photographic reference point it has to meet (Exhibit B) which one is supposed to see from this position as much of the ocean above the ridge line as depicted in the photograph. He noted that there is more than just the horizon line visible above the depicted ridge line. He asked what will be the correct reference, 272.5 feet or the amount of view in Exhibit B and what will happen when the ridge line meets condition No. 25 but it doesn't meet condition No. 43, and which condition controls. Director Rojas noted that the stricter condition will apply, and there is a condition which stipulates that if any conditions conflict then the stricter condition will apply. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that in the current Resolution before the Commission the ridge line height is discussed in condition No. 26 and the discussion regarding ·Exhibit B is part of the conditions in the coastal development permit. She noted that staff kept the conditions of approval that are applicable to the coastal development permit separate as they are under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they felt confident in the way the Resolution is worded and structured, that in the event of any conflict that it is clear that the stricter provision shall apply and can be enforced. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that it can be enforced by the Coastal Commission, adding that in an effort to try to help the applicant so they didn't get too far along in the Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 13 Attachments 3-42 process, staff is requiring the trail viewing station certification occur before submitting to Building and Safety. Commissioner Tetreault referred to page 24 of the staff report, noting some of the sections have been mis-numbered and should be corrected. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Tetreault in that just because the City Attorney opined it would be easier to litigate this case if it were in synch with the Coastal Commission, it is not a legitimate basis on which the Planning Commission should make a decision. He stated that he voted to approve this project at the prior meeting and can still make the findings today, and would therefore support the motion. He also reiterated his previous comments that if the ridgeline is even a hair above what is depicted in the photograph, it is his intent in supporting this motion that the applicant will bear 100 percent of the costs of doing whatever it takes to lower the structure to the correct ridge height. He added that he is in receipt of an email from Sunshine to the Mayor suggesting that if any of the Commissioners approve the project they should be allowed to term-out or removed from the Planning Commission. He disclosed that the email has not swayed his decision in any way. Vice Chairman Leon also remembered the previous discussion in regards to the photograph (Exhibit B). His recollection was that this photograph would be included in the conditions of approval. He felt that certifying the trail height was a good idea but he was not certain staff can know that the flag height on the silhouette equals the exact 272.5 feet required in the current conditions of approval. He stated he was reluctantly in support of the motion, but felt this view should be preserved. Director Rojas explained that exact issue was discussed with the City Attorney, and she felt that since the coastal development permit already has the language and will enforce that condition, the City can have conditions that will help the Coastal Commission in their enforcement of their conditions of approval, such as the ridge height certification. Vice Chairman Leon understood, however he explained that in engineering you try very hard never to have two requirements for the same thing, especially when one might conflict with the other. In this case, if 272.5 feet is well above the line depicted in the photograph, he didn't want the applicant to be able to say he met the City requirement. Director Rojas explained it is not under the City's purview to make the decision, but rather it is for the Coastal Commission to make the decision as it is their condition to enforce. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Louie Tomoro explained that a silhouette was constructed at the site and Denn Engineering certified the height at 272.5. That certification has been submitted to the City. He stated it was his intention to have the viewing station photograph taken with the new silhouette up and have it surveyed to give the City documentation. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 14 Attachments 3-43 Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault noted that both the Coastal Commission and the City are saying the ridge height will be 272.5 feet. The Coastal Commission conditions reference Exhibit Band say the photograph will be enforced, and he questioned why the City can't do the same. He asked what would happen if the Coastal Commission decides, for whatever reason, to not enforce the conditions in regards to the photograph. In that case there will be conditions that are not enforceable because they are not included in the City's conditions of approval. He questioned why the conditions can't be included in the City's conditions of approval as long as they are consistent with the Coastal Commission's conditions. Director Rojas understood the concern, but pointed out that this is not a new situation for the City, as Terranea and Trump National both have Coastal Commission conditions that the City does not enforce. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion so that the conditions set forth by the California Coastal Commission with respect to Exhibit B also be enforceable by the City. Commissioner Nelson supported the amendment, however as the seconder of the motion, Commissioner Lewis did not support the amendment. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion to add as a condition of approval that should the Coastal Commission delete the existing condition with regards to enforcement of Exhibit B, that the power falls to the Community Development Director to enforce Exhibit B as a visual check on the height of the project. As the maker of the original motion, Commissioner Nelson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion was approved as amended and PC Resolution 2014-09 was adopted, (3-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. ·NEW BUSINESS 6. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2014-00046): 32639 Nantasket Drive Commissioner Nelson recused himself from this item. There being no quorum, the item was continued to the February 25, 2014 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 15 Attachments 3-44 P.C. Late Correspondence (February 11, 2014) Attachments 3-45 THIS CERTIFICATION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY A LICENSED/REGISTERED ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT. THIS FORM MUST BEAR AN ORIGINAL WET STAMP AND SIGNATURE IN ORDER TO BE VALID. THIS FORM MUST ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SITE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION OF THE SILHOUETTE POSTS, THE EXISTING GRADE OR SUPPORTING STRUCTURE ELEVATION CALL-OUTS AT THE BASE OF THE POSTS, AND THE ELEVATION CALL-OUTS FOR THE TOP OF THE POSTS. ANY MISSING INFORMATION WILL RENDER THE SUBJECT APPLICATION "INCOMPLETE" FOR PROCESSING. I have measured the location and height (including the color demarcation) of the silhouette posts located at the project site (address) 3 3 4 4 PALOS VERDES DR. W ----------on {date) FEBRUARY 10, 2014 and I have found that the project silhouette accurately depicts the location and height (including the color demarcation) of the proposed structure presented on the architectural plans prepared by (name of architectural firm) TOMARO ARCHITECTURE on (date) _________ for the proposed project currently being considered by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Planning Case No. ________ ). Signature~ J.. k# LS/RCE RCE 3 0 z;: , Date FEBRUARY 10 2014 Revised: March 12, 2007 W:\Forms\Plng\apps\SILHOUETTE CRITERIA.doc 11-389 Page 14 12-026 Attachments 3-46 I I I ,,1 I I '.-·--·--·-·-·-·- ' -_._ . ..J-.-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ... -· ·-·-·-··-·-~-·-·-· ., o, '• Attachments 3-47 Leza Mikhail l=rom: ent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:41 AM Leza Mikhail FW: P.C. Application for 3344 PVDr .West From: Jeffrey Lewis [mailto:jeff@broedlowlewis.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:55 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: Fwd: P.C. Application for 3344 PVDr .West Hi Joel, See below for inclusion in as late correspondence. Thanks, Jeffrey Lewis BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP ...,34 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 I Rolling Hills Estates, CA I 90274 1'el. (310) 935-40011 Direct (310) 935-4002 I Fax. (310) 872-5389 Email: Jeff@BroedlowLewis.comIWeb:www.BroedlowLewis.com Cert[fied Specialist in Appellate Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization TIJJS message may be covered by the altorney-client. attorney work product and!m other applicable legal privileges Unautho11zcd possession or 11st' of this e-ma1l 1s prohihned ff ynt1 arc not rhe mtended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immcdiat~ly ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski(cil,hotmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:53 AM Subject: P.C. Application for 3344 PVDr .West To: "jeff®broedlowlewis.corn" <j ef'tfcV,broedlowlewis.com>, "jeff@.jefflewislaw.com" <kfflpjefTiewislaw.com> Dear Jeff, Thank you for your service on the Planning Commission. We have been very fortunate to have you on the Commission with your legal knowledge, atten6on to detail, and carefol analysis. I am writing to you in the hopes that you will oppose the application for a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit for 3344 Palos Verdes Dr. West which is on the current the Planning Commission Agenda for 2/11. Or perhaps this item can be continued until certain issues can be investigated and resolved, such as the scope of .he PC's authority over this project now that it has been reviewed and conditioned by the Coastal Commission. This proposal is not what the founding fathers of RPV had in mind for coastal development. Yes, the owner has Attachments 3-48 the right to develop, but within the confines of specific restrictions. In my view, according to the RPV General Plan, the revised current grading is insufficient to "preserve, protect or enhance the visual character of the city" AND The grading (which would not go down enough to preserve/enhance/protect the ocean view) \'>1ould be a special privilege for this property because others have had to comply with ocean view preservation. (namely, Oceanfront Estates, 2 Yacht Harbor Dr., Trump National, Terranea, and 3815 Palos Verdes Dr. South) Previous Planning Commissions and City Councils voted to protect the ocean view. I hope you will also. More grading down IS possible, just more expensive. The claim that fu11her grading is infeasible is questionable as a previous project for this very same site proposed excavating up to sixteen feet in depth and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. (pg. 11 of 15 RPV Var. No. 437, 10/2711998). Please drive by to see the flagging and ocean view obstruction. Now that the Coastal Commissioners vlere persuaded by a paid consultant/lobbyist to approve the Coastal Permit, we are left with depending on the RPV Planning Commission to NOT make the Findings for the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. You cannot reverse other decisions, but you can object to allowing past mistakes to be used to justify this proposal Please do not make the findings for the Grading Permit. please see notes below Also, the proposed landscaping conditions would not restrict foliage from blocking the public's view of the ocean. We all know how bushes and trees grow and our city does little enforcement. Just look how the foliage at Abalone Cove Park along the street has been allowed to completely block the view of the Point from PVDr. South! This is not what the founding fathers envisioned for our city. The .Johnson project (Yacht Harbor Dr.) is mited to 6 inch height on the Mesa, and no foliage along the wrought iron fence tp preserve the ocean view from Palos Verdes Dr. South as well as from nearby residences. Instead of eye-level from a passenger in a car, the city staff first uses pedestrian eye-level from the trail as base for this application. Then they changed it to the height of a person who took a photo (applicant?) of the "horizon". 5 feet 7 inches above the trail!!! What's going on here??? \\That about the people in passenger vehicles??? What about measuring from 3-4ft. above the street? There are provisions in the General Plan that you could use to deny the Grading Permit. No need to mention the Coastal Specific Plan other than it has not been followed always in the past, and it is stricter. Two or more past wrongs do not make a right in this case. If the same project were lowered to a height of 268' by grading down, I could support it. Please consider the facts below from P.C. Minutes. I will also write to the Planning Commission and city staff. Thank you again for you time and efforts for RPV ! Sincerely, Lenee Bilski ******************************** This property below Ladera Linda is not even in the coastal zone. Note "no view impact" in last Une. Re: 3815 PVDR So. -from Planning Commission Minutes: ''Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained the project and stated that the proposed height of the project was within the development code requirements for an upslope lot. He stated that in reviewing the proposed residence staff identified concerns with respect to view impacts with neighboring properties on Sea Raven Drive as well 2 Attachments 3-49 as ae:>thetic impacts on Palos Verdes Drive South." AND ~Larry_peha 67 14 1h Street, Hermosa Beach, stated he was the architect for the project. He stated that he has been working on the project for quite some time with staff and has made quite a few adjustments. He noted that he has moved the residence approximately 30 feet lower on the lot, adjusted the elevations, and substantially reduced the size of the structure. He stated that the ridge of the proposed structure is 25 feet below the top of the property on Searaven Drive. He Jlt this resulted in no view impacts from the neighbors above." http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/1?J_µnni1rn:/minutes a/Planning Commission/200 l/rpvpcmin2Q_OJ. l 009.cfm ******************************************** from P.C. MINUTES August 14, 2012 for the original (not this revised) plan at 277.75' MSL (above sea level) proposed for 3344 Palos Verdes Dr. West Chairman Tetreault asked if staff has done any analysis on the difference between the ridge height the applicant is proposi1ig at 277.75 versus staff's recommended height of 275.5, and what impact that would have upon anyone using the viewing station and how that would open up views. Director Rojas answered that no such analysis has been done other than what the Commission has before them in terms of pictures and silhouettes. He reminded the Commission that the proposed residence is not in a view corridor. In this case the Coastal Specific Plan gives a guideline that may be used to try to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive West. He noted that in regards to the homes built on Palos Verdes Drive West. City Councils and Planning Commissions in the past have made numerous interpretations of the guidelines and there is complete discretion on how the Commission wants to apply this guideline. 'ice Chairman Emenhiser explained his concern that there are really two constituencies to consider, the immediate neighborhood and the citizens of the City who will drive on Palos Verdes Drive West past this home and wonder what happened to their view. He noted the staff report suggests the applicant will be amenable to changes, however Mr. Tomaro has stated it will be difficult to lower the home by two feet. He asked Mr. Tomaro to clarify his position on being able to lower the structure. Mr. Tomaro explained that the coastal view issue came up late in the game and he is trying to find ways to work ways with staff on this issue. In order to lower the house, because it is on a slope, he will have to push the house back. This may start to affect the neighbor to the south as well as those driving south on Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt he would have to lower the building ten feet in order to see over it from the street. --.- 3 Attachments 3-50 Leza Mikhail rom: .:>ent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:39 PM Leza Mikhail FW: A bedtime story about solutions to staff errors From: Jeff Lewis (mailto:socallawyer@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:01 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: Fwd: A bedtime story about solutions to staff errors Late correspondence. See bclmv. Jeff Lewis ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: <SunshineRPV@aol.com> Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM 'ubject: Fwd: A bedtime story about solutions to staff errors ro: paul@agajanianlaw.com, nelsongang(a)aol.com, gordon.leon;@gmail.com, davidltomblin(@,sbcglobal.net, em_~n!ljser@aol.com, jefflewis@palosverdes.com, billgerstner(ii),palosverdes.com ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: <SunshineRPV<ZV.aol.com> To: <b.camp@cox.n,~p Cc: <subrooks08@gmail.com>, <jduhovic@),hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:07:13 -0500 Subject: Fwd: A bedtime story about solutions to staff errors Hi Brian, Jerry called me and we had an interesting discussion about the "advice" he is getting from Joel Rojas· and Carol Lynch specific to 3344 PV Drive West. The conversation turned to the fact that JPIA only defends RPV when a Staff error or omission generates a lawsuit. There is no fund in the budget and no incentive for Staff to remedy their mistakes in house and in a timely manner. The recent Coastal Zone errors are not site specific to 3344 PV Drive West. The RPV Coastal Specific Plan needs to be amended so that It clearly defines the view to be preserved and enhanced is along all of PV Drive West and South. (As in all of the RPV Coastal Zone is "appealable".) Attachments 3-51 The RPV Coastal Specific Plan needs to be amended so that it clearly defines the "viewing station" which is the start point of the two degree down arc as three feet above the "fog line" or the bike lane line whichever is relevant. No Staff discretion and a height variance application for a proposed view blockage to be considered. That is now only the "spirit" of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan which Staff is not pursuing. I know it is an oxymoron but I can't resist. .. After a "brief perusal" of the Staff Report for tonight's Planning Commission Hearing, I don't see anything except finger pointing and a staunch defense of their ill advised previous decisions. At this point, all that Council Members can do is start putting some wheels in motion. Agendize a vote on making the Planning Commission's Coastal Zone decisions appealable at no cost to the Appellants and agendize a view preservation amendment to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. Interested parties will be happy to write the Report for whoever is willing to step up. . .. S ----------Forwarded message---------- From: <SunshineRPVC@aol.com> To: <jduhovic@hotmail.com> Cc: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:41:22 -0500 Subject: A bedtime story about solutions to staff errors Hi Jerry, )hould you care to have more details, look into The Supreme Court of the United States, 2005, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al, Petitioners, v. Mark J. Abrams, respondent. In this case, an RPV resident with access to a lot of cash felt that a decision by the then RPV Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Deprutment was violating his civil rights. The Supreme Court made two decisions. #1. The City of RPV was indeed violating this property owner's civil rights and should cease and desist, immediately. #2. (which the RPV City Council celebrated as a victory), a City does not have to reimburse the whistle blower's legal costs. I'll bet that the RPV Director of Finance will not want to track down how many tax payer dollars were paid to Carol Lynch, et al, in defense of what was actually a small "oops" on the part of RPV Staff. Carol Lych's position is usually "stall, do nothing", "if threatened, do not back down" and "be sure to pay me in a timely fashion". Carol Lynch needs to be replaced with someone who has the City of RPV's citizens' best interests in mind. Good luck finding an Attorney with that attitude. 3344 PV Drive West is a comedy of Staff errors. In this case, the applicant has the where-with-all to sue over"' the Staff abuse. l1e/she probably doesn't know that according to RPV v Abrams, they have no prayer of recovering any of their legal costs. (Another little factoid that Staff does not share with Applicants.) If the majority of the RPV Planning Commission votes in favor of Staff's "conclusion", those in favor should be term limited out. The others get to exit saying ''enough is enough". Teez but I hate reading Staff Reports. One would think they were being paid by the word like old time "pulp fiction" novel writers. To make matters worse, I no longer have a button on my tool bar to see the Staff Report at I 00 percent. I can't read it at 25% .... S 2 Attachments 3-52 -Leza Mikhail ·om: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lenee Bilski < leneebilski@hotmail.com > Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:07 PM PlanningCommission Leza Mikhail Feb. 11 P.C. Agenda: Application for 3344 PV Dr.West Dear Chair Emenhiser and Planning Commissioners, I have been a resident here since 1962 which gives me a unique perspective on this City. Your task is to review the aspects of the proposal over which the City has lawful jurisdiction which is the Site Plan and Grading Plan for this "revised" project. Please either deny the Grading Permit application or continue this matter to another meeting. When you approved the 2012 application for this site, the proposed residence ridgeline was 118 feet from the viewing station. "Mr. Tomaro explained that the coastal view issue came up late in the game and he is trying to find ways to work with staff on this issue. In order to lower the house, 'lecause it is on a slope, he will have to push the house back. "(from P.C. MINUTES August 14, 2012} .... ccording to the Architect, now the ridgeline is proposed to be119 feet from the east property line. I was under the impression that the difference between Plan A and Plan B was a lot more than one foot How much of an impact can one (1} foot have? In my view, according to the RPV General Plan and the Findings needed, the current revised grading is insufficient to "preserve, protect or enhance the visual character of the city" {#2)and The grading (which as proposed would not go down enough to preserve/enhance/protect the ocean view) would be a special privilege for this property because others have had to comply with ocean view preservation, namely, Oceanfront Estates, 2 Yacht Harbor Dr., Trump National, Terranea, and 3815 Palos Verdes Dr. South.* Previous Planning Commissions and City Councils voted to protect the ocean view. I hope you will also. More grading down IS possible, just more expensive. The claim that further grading is infeasible is questionable as a previous project for this very same site proposed excavating up to sixteen feet in depth and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. (pg. 11of15 RPV Var. No. 437, 10/27 /1998). That's evidence that more grading is feasible. I hope you each drove by to see the flagging and to notice the ocean view obstruction. This is not the best alternative for this site. The overal redgeline height should be lowered to 268'MSL to preserve and protect the ocean view now and for future generations to enjoy. Then it would comply with the RPV General Plan for those two Findings. ,.,•' 1'he Planning Commission has the power to preserve and protect the public's views. If an applicant presented a project that projected 12 feet into the view and then revised it down to project 6 feet, which would still block the view, would you approve it just because the height had been lowered ? Attachments 3-53 This applicant lowered the project somewhat, but not enough to protect the ocean view for the public traveling in passenger vehicles on Palos Verdes Dr. West . .lso, the proposed landscaping conditions would not restrict foliage from blocking the public's view of the ocean. We all know how bushes and trees grow and our city does little in the way of enforcement. Just look how the foliage at Abalone Cove Park along the street has been allowed to completely block the view of the ocean and Portuguese Point from PV Dr. South at Seacove! This is not what the founding fathers envisioned for our city. The Johnson project (Yacht Harbor Dr.) is limited to 6 inch foliage height on the mesa, and no foliage is allowed along the wrought iron fencing to preserve the ocean view from Palos Verdes Dr. South as well as from nearby residences. This proposal needs more limitations -low ground cover along the fence, not bushes that will cancel the 90% light and air the fencing now provides and 268' MSL foliage height limitation between the roadway and the structure, NOT the ridgeline height. It seems the city's landscaping plan Review only checks for types of vegetation but does not take view impairment into consideration before granting approval. The neighboring residents reviewed the Yacht Harbor landscaping before approval and worked with the city to revise the plan for view preservation, so I know it is possible. Over the City's 40 years, previous Planning Commissions and City Councils voted to protect the ocean view. However, recently some project approvals have been granted that do not preserve the ocean view, but block it. Don't use those as your guide. Please don't approve this one, too. It will be the City Council's task to discuss and rule on Staff's interpretations, statements to the applicant, statements to the RPV Planning Commission, statements to the CA Coastal Commission and statements to the oublic which appear to be detrimental to the goals of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. "protect and enhance" . Thank you for your service to RPV. Sincerely, Lenee Bilski * This property below Ladera Linda is not even in the coastal zone, yet views were preserved. Note "no view impact" in last line. Re: 3815 PVDR So. -from Planning Commission Minutes: "Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained the project and stated that the proposed height ofthe project was within the development code requirements for an upslope lot. He stated that in reviewing the proposed residence staff identified concerns with respect to view impacts with neighboring .,, properties on Sea Raven Drive as well as aesthetic impacts on Palos Verdes Drive South." AND "Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated he was the architect for the project. He stated that he. has been working on the project for quite some time with staff and has made quite a few adjustments. He noted that he has moved the residence approximately 30 feet lower on the lot, adjusted the elevations, and substantially reduced the size of the structure. He stated that the ridge of the proposed structure is 25 feet below the top of the property on Sea raven Drive. He felt this resulted in no view impacts from the neighbors 1bove.11 http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/minutes_a/Planning_Commission/2001/rpvpcmin20011009.cfm 2 Attachments 3-54 Leza Mikhail =ram: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Louie Tomaro <louiet@tomaro.com> Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:04 PM Leza Mikhail; Planning 3344 PV Dr W Please accept this email as late correspondence to request that the above referenced project be moved as late as possible on the agenda for the hearing at this evenings Planning Commission. I Have a City Council hearing tonight that I need to attend prior to the hearing for the referenced project and ask the Planning Commission for consideration in moving the project to as late on the agenda as possible so that I might be present for the hearing. Thank you for your consideration Respectfully, Louie Tomaro AIA Arc.flitBcture Division Attachments 3-55 eza Mikhail ezstevens@cox.net From: ant: To: Subject: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:12 PM Leza Mikhail; CC; PlanningCommission RE: Chase Bank Trees Dear Leza, I will be out of town & miss the meeting & the staff report. I arn hoping that you or the Staff will emphasize the need to remove those 3 trees to maintain sorne of the last areas in RPV to PRESERVE the Open Coastal View Corridor for future Generation to enjoy. A good neighbor would not hesitate to remove those trees before they become a problem. I wish that you & the city staff would get together & take a slow drive in a regular car along PV DH S & W, along Hawthorne & Crest to see all the over grown trees & shrubs & developments that have taken over 60% of the open view in the 45 years I have lived here. If this is allowed to continue we will be just like San Pedro along Paso Del Mar & PV Estates along PV DR West with no view at all for future generations to enjoy. This rests in your hands & the City Council to attempt to preserve what is left & maybe restore some of the view that has been taken away. From the Public. Sincerely Edward Stevens rom: Leza Mikhail [mailto:LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:40 PM To: 'ezstevens@cox.net' Subject: Chase Bank Hello Mr. Stevens, As a courtesy, I wanted to remind you that the 6-month review for the Chase Bank located at 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. will be heard before the Planning Commission next Tuesday, February 11, 2014. I recall that you provided Staff with some concerns related to landscaping that was installed along Hawthorne Blvd. as part of the construction of the new Chase Bank building. As promised, your comments were included with the Staff Report. I also wanted to make you aware that the Staff Report will be available for your review by the end of the day today, or early tomorrow morning under "Current Planning Agenda." Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be happy to assist you. Thank you, 1,cza Mikhail ssociate Planner ~ ~ City of r.R..,ancli.o <Pa{os 'Verdi.?s Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. 1 Attachments 3-56 P.C. Public Comments (February 11, 2014) Attachments 3-57 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hello Sunshine, Leza Mikhail Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:55 AM 'SunshineRPV@aol.com' Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; cprotem73@verizon.net RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 NOi A-5-RPV-12-350 Khosla.pdf Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them in the Staff Report. The project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West went before the California Coastal Commission (CCC} in December 2013 on appeal by the CCC. The CCC reviewed the project to see if it was complying with the City's Coastal Specific Plan. After reviewing the project and requiring modifications, the CCC approved a project that they felt meets the requirements and guidelines and of the City's Coastal Specific Plan with specific conditions of approval related to the construction ofthe project, height limitations to protect ocean views as seen from the public trails and on-site foliage. I have attached the Notice of Intent from the CCC, whereby you can find the conditions imposed by the CCC on the project. Given that the CCC acted on the CDP, the CDP is no longer within the purview of the RPV Planning Commission. At the upcoming meeting, the Planning Commission will only be discussing the grading associated with the CDP in an effort to synchronize the CCC's CDP with the City's Grading Permit. I hope that helps clarify the current application and purview of the Planning Commission. Let me know if you have any further questions and I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of ~ncli.o Pafos 'Veraes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310} 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:13 PM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; cprotem73@verizon.net Subject: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Hi Leza, 1 Attachments 3-58 Have you, the applicants or anyone produced a SECTION drawing which shows the two percent down arc viewing line across this site? The roadway elevation varies between 267.43 feet and 267.679. Just to keep it simple, three feet above the roadway is pretty darn close to 371 feet. The proposed structure is at 272.5 with the twin turrets at 272.85. No matter how you look at it, that puts the house higher than the eye level of a passenger in a passing sedan height car. I think the RPV Planning Commissioners (and the public) should see a layman level illustration of where this proposed structure intrudes above the down arc. Why have a Coastal Specific Plan if it is not used to preserve the public's view of the ocean and coast? Are there any conditions which require the property owner to keep foliage from growing up above the down arc line? SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 1/20/2014 5:20:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, LisaG@rpv.com writes: Please find the attached public notice. Lisa Garrett Administrative Staff Assistant Community Development Dept. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 902 75 (310) 544-5228 Jisag@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv 2 Attachments 3-59 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello SUNSHINE, Leza Mikhail Friday, January 31, 2014 4:22 PM 'SunshineRPV@aol.com' CC; 'pc@rpv.com'; Greg Pfost (gregp@rpv.com); Joel Rojas; Carol W. Lynch (clynch@rwglaw.com) FW: Defending the RPV Coastal Specific Plan Thank you for your comments noted below. Staff would like to take fhis opportunity to address some of your concerns in hopes of clarifying the City's role in processing the application for the property located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. In an effort to make sure we address all of your concerns, Staff has responded after each item below in red. In addition, Staff would like to help clarify the City's role and the Coastal Commission's role in processing applications that are subject to the City's Local Coastal Program/Plan. Ultimately, the City's Local Coastal Program is a planning document that governs development within the City's Coastal Zone. In addition, the City works in partnership with the California Coastal Commission to ensure that the development that is occurring is consistent with the guidelines established in the Local Coastal Program. The California Coastal Commission does have/hold authority over development approved by City (local level) for projects which are subject to the City's Local Coastal Program. Due to the fact that the project for 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West was appealed by the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Commission was required to determine if the project raised a substantial issue. In this case, the California Coastal Commission found that the project did raise a substantial issue and therefore took jurisdiction over the Coastal Development Permit associated with the project. The California Coastal Commission acted on the project by requiring the project to be reduced in height (with other landscape requirements) and imposed conditions on the Coastal Development Permit. The conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission were in the Notice of Intent that I previously forwarded to you. These conditions do take precedence over the authority of City with respect to the Coastal Development Permit. I hope this helps to further detail the City's role on the Coastal Development Permit. I have tried to respond to your additional comments below in red. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me and I would be happy to assist you. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of <JWncli.o <Pafos 'Verd"es Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com 1 Attachments 3-60 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:21 AM To: CC; PlanningCommission; Carolynn Petru Subject: Defending the RPV Coastal Specific Plan MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager and interested parties. RE: 3344 PY Drive West development application process During a recent telephone conversation with Leza Mikhail, RPV Associate Planner, certain issues became less -transparent. Even when pushed, Ms. Mikhail would not reveal the names of the actual decision makers. In response to my question about what the applicant was told about the RPV Coastal Specific Plan prior to the completion of his/her application, Leza said "the City decided" that the two percent down arc did not apply in this case. I don't recall making that statement, but I do recall referring you to the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report where the topic was discussed in detail. In response to my question about who is the final authority for granting entitlements in this case, Leza said "she has been told" it is the CA Coastal Commission. The City will be issuing Building Permits for this project in its entirety. In terms of granting entitlements, the City (if approved by the Planning Commission) would be granting the entitlement to the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. The California Coastal Commission has issued a Notice of Intent to grant the entitlement for a Coastal Development Permit. The City's decision must be consistent with the Coastal Commission's decision. In response to my question about the RPV Planning Commission's role, Leza said "she has been told" that they are to synchronize the grading entitlement and, only that. The Planning Commission is responsible for acting on the Grading Permit. A discussion of the Planning Commission's authority on the Grading Permit will be presented in the forthcoming Staff Report for the February 11, 2014. In response to my question about how some of the Coastal Commission's conditions cannot be found as "in compliance " until RPV issues building permits, the site is graded and the structure framed, who has the authority to say it is not in compliance and force the applicant to tear it all down and start over, Leza said "the CA Coastal Commission." If I am understanding your statement above, this is correct. The California Coastal Commission imposed certain conditions of approval on the Coastal Development Permit for which they have jurisdiction to ensure that these conditions are complied with. Additionally, through the review of the Grading Permit by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014, it is expected that there will be additional conditions applied to the project that the City would be responsible for enforcing. I called Leza to try to get one very relevant dimension which I did not find on the applicant's site plan. Without looking at the drawing herself, Leza suggested that I Google the Architect for his phone number, call and ask him to provide me with the dimension. That is absurd. 2 Attachments 3-61 Unfortunately, I did not have the plans in front of me while I was on the phone with you. I explained that I did not recall seeing the specific dimensions that you were requesting on the plans, but that I could not be 100 % certain. The dimensions you were requesting seemed to be very specific in nature, and so I suggested that you may want to contact the Architect to see if they could provide you with those very specific dimensions/elevations above sea level/calculations, or I would be happy to go over the plans and file with you at the City to try to located what you were looking for. This whole affair has become absurd. I find it to be outrageous that the RPV City Council has no say in the matter. Even an appeal by residents appears to have no standing . . Actually, if the Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 decision is appealed, then the City Council may hear the matter on the Grading Permit. This applicant is either playing the system or is being jerked around. Either way, he/she should not be permitted to move more than 20 cubic yards of dirt prior to a resolution of this government responsibility v authority pissing match. On behalf of the current/future residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and all potential visitors to the California Coastal Zone, come February 11, 2014, I implore the RPV Planning Commission to make no "findings" on behalf of this application. 3 Attachments 3-62 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Fyi Joel Rojas Sunday, February 02, 2014 9:11 PM Leza Mikhail FW: Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350 3344 PV Drive West From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:39 AM To: john.delarroz@coastal.ca.gov ~Cc: snapolitano@lacbos.org; william.orton@sen.ca.gov; kevin.hefner@asm.ca.gov; info@coastwalk.org Subject: RE: Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350 3344 PV Drive West Dear Mr. Del Arroz: Who/where did this "viewpoint" definition come from? The RPV Coastal Specific Plan says it is to be three feet above the PV Drive roadway with a two percent down arc. A "viewpoint" 5'-7" above the California Coastal Trail to the horizon means that I (at a height of 5'-1"), most children and all passengers in sedan height motor vehicles won't be able to see the horizon, Catalina Island or any of the ocean. SUNSHINE 6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-377-8761 sunshinerpv@aol.com 1 Attachments 3-63 Leza Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 9:33 AM Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: Urgent future Agenda Item Please include with your staff report. From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:53 AM _ To: SunshineRPV@aol.com Cc: 'Jduhovic@hotmail.com'; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas Subject: FW: Urgent future Agenda Item Hi Sunshine - Mayor Duhovic forwarded your email to staff for input. We offer the following information in response to your inquiry: Pursuant to the Municipal Code and state planning law, the Planning Commission must make its determination about the aspects of the project over which the City has jurisdiction, which is the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. Those decisions can then be appealed to the City Council. It is not possible to circumvent the process and have the City Council take up the matter before the Planning Commission has acted on it. However, once the Planning Commission makes a decision, it would be appealable to the City Council. It is important to note that the Coastal Commission has paramount jurisdiction over coastal issues. Two Coastal Commissioners appealed the Coastal Permit that was approved previously by the Planning Commission. The Coastal Commission has rendered a decision about the Coastal Development Permit, and unless the City decides to challenge it in court, it is final, and the City must comply with it. The City's Coastal Specific Plan does apply to this subject property, as it is located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive. In addition, this project is within the portion of the Coastal Zone over which the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction. Usually, the area within the Coastal Commission's appealable jurisdiction is the area that is seaward of the first public road. However, in this case, the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) was approved prior to the development of streets in that area that are seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West (Marguerite Drive, etc.). That was the reason for the initial confusion about the jurisdictional point. Because the City's LCP has that area as being within the area over which the Coastal Commission would have jurisdiction, the Coastal Commissioners were able to appeal this project. I hope that's helpful! CP From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:29:00 -0500 Subject: Urgent future Agenda Item To: jduhovic@hotmail.com Hi Jerry, 1 Attachments 3-64 Is there any chance that the Mayor can get 3344 PV Drive West removed from the Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 Agenda and put the real issue onto a future City Council Agenda? Does or does not the RPV Coastal Specific Plan apply at this location? ... S 2 Attachments 3-65 Leza Mikhail From: Leza Mikhail Sent: To: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:35 PM Lenee Bilski; SunshineRPV@aol.com Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; Ed Stevens; Ken Dyda; jsikola@me.com; Lenee Bilski; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Hello Lenee, Perhaps I misunderstood your question. The total grading proposed for the entire project is 3,884 cubic yards, which includes 1, 737 cubic yards of grading beneath the footprint of the residence. As for your second question, I would defer to the architect for the exact dimension. I will forward your question to him and see if he can provide me with an answer for. There are a few retaining walls. One retaining wall will support the driveway and another retaining wall will support the south side of the property. The last retaining wall is a short wall in the rear yard to accommodate the flat rear yard area. A discussion of the grading and retaining walls will be outlined within the upcoming staff report. I hope this helps answer your questions. I will await the Architect's response. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of <J@ncfio <Pafos 'f/eraes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.oalosverdes.com/rpv/planning/index.cfm. (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:29 PM To: Leza Mikhail; SunshineRPV@aol.com Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; Ed Stevens; Ken Dyda; jsikola@me.com; Lenee Bilski; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> , Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Thank you, Leza. You didn't supply the total grading amount for the proposal. What is the total? As for the distance measurement, I find in the August 2012 staff report for the first proposal this reference: "The ridgeline of the residence, as currently proposed, is approximately 118'0" 1 Attachments 3-66 from the viewing station." And now? That is the measurement I am seeking for this revised proposal which was relocated on the property since the first proposal. Thank you for the correction about the omission of Site Plan Review in your previous email. One additional question: what is the purpose of the retaining walls? Lenee From: LezaM@rpv.com · To: leneebilski@hotmail.com; sunshinerpv@aol.com CC: LisaG@rpv.com; PlanningCommission@rpv.com; ezstevens@cox.net; cprotem73@verizon.net; jsikola@me.com; ldb910@intergate.com; clynch@rwglaw.com Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Publit Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:04:55 +0000 Hello Lenee, The total quantity of grading beneath the footprint of the residence is 1,737 cubic yards. Can you clarify the exact measurement you are looking for with regard to the distance between the "property line and proposed ridgeline?" Which property line and which ridgeline? Also, from what point on the property line and what point on the ridgeline? I would like to make sure I fully understand the question and the information you are seeking. Once you provide me with these exact measurements, I will forward them to the Architect to provide the information for the exact measurement/dimension. With regard to your last question, the Planning Commission will be discussing the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit. Thank you for your questions, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner ~City of <J{ancli.o Paws 'Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:46 AM To: Leza Mikhail; SunshineRPV@aol.com Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; Ed Stevens; Ken Dyda; jsikola@me.com; Lenee Bilski Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 2 Attachments 3-67 Hi Leza, What is the total proposed grading for 3344 PV Dr. West, and how much grading is proposed beneath the residence? What is the distance from the property line to the proposed ridgeline? Why do you write that the P.C. will only be discussing Grading when the Public Notice states the hearing is for Site Plan Review and Grading Permit? Thanks in advance for your prompt response. Lenee Bilski From: LezaM@rpv.com To: SunshineRPV@aol.com CC: LisaG@rpv.com; PlanningCommission@rpv.com; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; cprotem 73@verizon.net Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 201417:54:37 +0000 Hello Sunshine, Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them in the Staff Report. The project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West went before the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in December 2013 on appeal by the CCC. The CCC reviewed the project to see if it was complying with the City's Coastal Specific Plan. After reviewing the project and requiring modifications, the CCC approved a project that they felt meets the requirements and guidelines and of the City's Coastal Specific Plan with specific conditions of approval related to the construction of the project, height limitations to protect ocean views as seen from the public trails and on-site foliage. I have attached the Notice of Intent from the CCC, whereby you can find the conditions imposed by the CCC on the project. Given that the CCC acted on the CDP, the CDP is no longer within the purview of the RPV Planning Commission. At the upcoming meeting, the Planning Commission will only be discussing the grading associated with the CDP in an effort to synchronize the CCC's CDP with the City's Grading Permit. I hope that helps clarify the current application and purview of the Planning Commission. Let me know if you have any further questions and I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. ,., Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner I El lbty of <RJznclio <Pafos 'Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. 3 Attachments 3-68 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:13 PM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; cprotem73@verizon.net Subject: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW _Zon2012-00141 Hi Leza, Have you, the applicants or anyone produced a SECTION drawing which shows the two percent down arc viewing line across this site? The roadway elevation varies between 267.43 feet and 267.679. Just to keep it simple, three feet above the roadway is pretty darn close to 371 feet. The proposed structure is at 272.5 with the twin turrets at 272.85. No matter how you look at it, that puts the house higher than the eye level of a passenger in a passing sedan height car. I think the RPV Planning Commissioners (and the public) should see a layman level illustration of where this proposed structure intrudes above the down arc. Why have a Coastal Specific Plan if it is not used to preserve the public's view of the ocean and coast? Are there any conditions which require the property owner to keep foliage from growing up above the down arc line? SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 1/20/2014 5:20:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, LisaG@rpv.com writes: Please find the attached public notice. Lisa Garrett . Administrative Staff Assistant Community Development Dept. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 /isaq@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv 4 Attachments 3-69 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks, Joel. Lenee Bilski < leneebilski@hotmail.com > Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:17 PM Joel Rojas Leza Mikhail; PlanningCommission RE: Future agenda items Reminder: the revised plan was appealed to the City Council, but the owner withdrew the application before the appeal could be heard by the CC. Lenee From: JoelR@rpv.com To: leneebilski@hotmail.com; CC@rpv.com CC: PlanningCommission@rpv.com; verikon@cox.net; clynch@rwglaw.com; LezaM@rpv.com Subject: RE: Future agenda items Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:40:26 +0000 Dear Council Members As a way of background, there is a project involving a new house at 3344 Palos Verdes Dive West that was originally approved by the City's Planning Commission, not appealed to the City Council but then subsequently appealed by the Coastal Commission. On appeal, the Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Permit last December for a revised project. The associated Grading and Site Plan Review Application that the Coastal Commission did not act upon is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission next Tuesday. The Coastal Commission's decision (and original PC decision) on the Costa I Permit is generating some questions/issues from some members of the public in advance of Tuesday's PC hearing. Hence, this request for the City Council to take up the matter of Coastal Specific Plan implementation on a future agenda. With regards to the next Tuesday's PC meeting on the project at 3344 PVDW, pursuant to the Municipal Code and state planning law, the Planning Commission must make its determination about the aspects of the project over which the City has jurisdiction, which is the grading permit and site plan. Those decisions then can be appealed to the City Council. Joel From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 3:11 PM To: CC Cc: PlanningCommission; Valerie Blitz Subject: Future agenda items Feb.4,2014 Dear Mayor Duhovic and Council members, I am writing to ask that the implementation of the Coastal Specific Plan be put on a future agenda. This is an 1 Attachments 3-70 urgent plea to bring this forward at tonight's Council meeting. There are a number of issues with the RPV Coastal Specific Plan that need City Council input before any more city actions are taken on proposals in the coastal zone. 1) Recently an Applicant was not informed at the very beginning of the application process for a coastal zone property of the Coastal Specific Plan regarding height limitations to preserve public views. With plans and drawings already completed, at the August 2012 P.C. hearing, when questioned about potential public view obstruction, the applicant "explained that the coastal view issue came up late in the game." (from P.C. Minutes) 2) On more than one occasion in past years, the Public Notice and city staff stated a subject property is located within the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Zone. The most recent such issue was noted by the CA Coastal Commission which notified the City that indeed the property IS within the the appealable area. It was too late for the public. 3) The RPV Director of Community Development has" reminded the Commission that the proposed residence is not in a view corridor. In this case the Coastal Specific Plan gives a guideline that may be used to try to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive West." However, the Coastal Specific Plan is quite specific on measurements and height restrictions to protect and enhance public views from Palos Verdes Drives West and South. 4) The staff has recommended approval of a project that if built would provide for only a view of the "horizon" for the public The Coastal Specific Plan clearly states "view of the ocean" "Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). 5) Staff has interpreted "should" as simply a guideline (see quote in #3 above) rather than an obligation and duty. According to the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary "should" is the past tense of "shall", used in auxiliary function to express duty, obligation, necessity, propriety, or expediency <for 'tis commanded I should do so -Shakespeare> I am aware that the City considers "shall" as mandatory. All these issues need your immediate attention so that the spirit and intent of the Coastal Specific Plan can be preserved. Thank you for your time and all you do for RPV! Sincerely, Lenee Bilski 2 Attachments 3-71 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Sunshine, Leza Mikhail Tuesday, February 04, 2014 3:44 PM SunshineRPV@aol.com Joel Rojas; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> RE: TNX Re: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 I will include your comments in the staff report for the Planning Commission. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner From: SunshineRPV@aol.com <SunshineRPV@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:39 PM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: TNX Re: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Hi Leza, Save a phone call. Louie Tomaro told me that the current proposal is 119 feet from the east property line at 267.679 above the mean high tide line to the primary north/south ridgeline at 272.5 above... The "viewing station" to establish the two percent down arc is still a moving target. I know where the trail is. I know where the curb is. I even know where the bike lane is in relation to the motor vehicle traffic lane. Staff's previously recommended project has the ridgeline at 118 feet from where? The high point of the curb? Just like trails, a dimension is useless without a specific start and end point. A "viewing station" needs both a horizontal and a vertical location. If you did not ask the applicant's Architect to put that on the drawings prior to declaring the application "complete", what good is a site plan review? ... S PS: Who gets to decide that proposed grading is "excessive"? In a message dated 2/4/2014 2:35:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, LezaM@rpv.com writes: Hello Lenee, Perhaps I misunderstood your question. The total grading proposed for the entire project is 3,884 cubic yards, which includes 1, 737 cubic yards of grading beneath the footprint of the residence. 1 Attachments 3-72 As for your second question, I would defer to the architect for the exact dimension. I will forward your question to him and see if he can provide me with an answer for. There are a few retaining walls. One retaining wall will support the driveway and another retaining wall will support the south side of the property. The last retaining wall is a short wall in the rear yard to accommodate the flat rear yard area. A discussion of the grading and retaining walls will be outlined within the upcoming staff report. I hope this helps answer your questions. I will await the Architect's response. Thank you, Leza Mikhail -Associate Planner Ci't) of <J(g.nclio a>at:os 'Veraes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www .palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/index.cfm. (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:29 PM To: Leza Mikhail; SunshineRPV@aol.com Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; Ed Stevens; Ken Dyda; jsikola@me.com; Lenee Bilski; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Thank you, Leza. You didn't supply the total grading amount for the proposal. What is the total? As for the distance measurement, I find in the August 2012 staff report for the first proposal this reference: "The ridgeline of the residence, as currently proposed, is approximately 118'0" from the viewing station." And now? That is the measurement I am seeking for this revised proposal which was relocated on the property since the first proposal. Thank you for the correction about the omission of Site Plan Review in your previous email. One additional question: what is the purpose of the retaining walls? Lenee From: LezaM@rpv.com To: leneebilski@hotmail.com; sunshinerpv@aol.com CC: LisaG@rpv.com; PlanningCommission@rpv.com; ezstevens@cox.net; cprotem73@verizon.net; jsikola@me.com; ldb910@intergate.com; clynch@rwglaw.com 2 Attachments 3-73 Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW_Zon2012-00141 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:04:55 +0000 Hello Lenee, The total quantity of grading beneath the footprint of the residence is 1,737 cubic yards. Can you clarify the exact measurement you are looking for with regard to the distance between the "property line and proposed ridgeline?" Which property line and which ridgeline? Also, from what point on the property line and what point.on the ridgeline? I would like to make sure I fully understand the question and the information you are seeking. Once you provide me with these exact measurements, I will forward them to the Architect to provide the information for the exact measurement/dimension. -With regard to your last question, the Planning Commission will be discussing the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit. Thank you for your questions, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner ~City of <R..,ancli.o Pafos o/eraes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:46 AM To: Leza Mikhail; SunshineRPV@aol.com Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; Ed Stevens; Ken Dyda; jsikola@me.com; Lenee Bilski Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW _Zon2012-00141 Hi Leza, What is the total proposed grading for 3344 PV Dr. West, and how much grading is proposed beneath the residence? What is the distance from the property line to the proposed ridgeline? Why do you write that the P.C. will only be discussing Grading when the Public Notice states the hearing is for Site Plan Review and Grading Permit? Thanks in advance for your prompt response. 3 Attachments 3-74 Lenee Bilski From: LezaM@rpv.com To: SunshineRPV@aol.com CC: LisaG@rpv.com; PlanningCommission@rpv.com; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; cprotem 73@verizon.net Subject: RE: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW _Zon2012-00141 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 201417:54:37 +0000 Hello Sunshine, -Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them in the Staff Report. The project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West went before the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in December 2013 on appeal by the CCC. The CCC reviewed the project to see if it was complying with the City's Coastal Specific Plan. After reviewing the project and requiring modifications, the CCC approved a project that they felt meets the requirements and guidelines and of the City's Coastal Specific Plan with specific conditions of approval related to the construction of the project, height limitations to protect ocean views as seen from the public trails and on- site foliage. I have attached the Notice of Intent from the CCC, whereby you can find the conditions imposed by the CCC on the project. Given that the CCC acted on the CDP, the CDP is no longer within the purview of the RPV Planning Commission. At the upcoming meeting, the Planning Commission will only be discussing the grading associated with the CDP in an effort to synchronize the CCC's CDP with the City's Grading Permit. I hope that helps clarify the current application and purview of the Planning Commission. Let me know if you have any further questions and I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner I 1!1 lbty of (f(ancli.o Paws Vertfes. Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm {310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com ' From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:13 PM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: Lisa Garrett; PlanningCommission; EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; cprotem73@verizon.net Subject: Questions. Re: Public Notice-3344 PVDW _Zon2012-00141 Hi Leza, 4 Attachments 3-75 Have you, the applicants or anyone produced a SECTION drawing which shows the two percent down arc viewing line across this site? The roadway elevation varies between 267.43 feet and 267.679. Just to keep it simple, three feet above the roadway is pretty darn close to 371 feet. The proposed structure is at 272.5 with the twin turrets at 272.85. No matter how you look at it, that puts the house higher than the eye level of a passenger in a passing sedan height car. I think the RPV Planning Commissioners (and the public) should see a layman level illustration of where this proposed structure intrudes above the down arc. Why have a Coastal Specific Plan if it is not used to preserve the public's view of the ocean and coast? Are there any conditions which require the property owner to keep foliage from growing up above the -down arc line? SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 1/20/2014 5:20:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, LisaG@rov.com writes: Please find the attached public notice. Lisa Garrett Administrative Staff Assistant Community Development Dept. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 lisaq@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv 5 Attachments 3-76 California Coastal Commission (Notice of Intent to Issue Permit) Attachments 3-77 I/ STATE OF CALIFORNiA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY File CopxDMUND G. BROWN. JR .• GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast District Office 200 Oceangale, 1 Olh Floal" Long Beach, C81ifomla 90802-4416 PH (562) 590·5071 FAX (562) 590-5084 Page 1 Date: December 18, 2013 PennitApplication No. A-5-RPV-12-350 NOTICE OF.INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT (Upon satisfaction of special conditions) THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF THE STEPS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A VALID AND EFFECTIVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ("CDP"). A Coastal Development Pennit for the development describe4 below has been approved but is not yet effective. Development on the site cannot commence until the .C:I?P is effective .. In order for the CDP to be effective, Coi:nmission staff must iss~e the CDP to the applicant, and the applicant must sign and return the CDP. Coinmission staff cannot issue the CDP until the applicant has fulfilled each of the "prior to issuance" Special Conditions. A list: of all the Special Conditions for this permit is ' attached. · ' · The Cm:,nrnission's approval of the CDP is valid for two years from the date of approval. To prevent expiration of the CDP, you must fulfill the "prior to issuance" Special Conditions, obtain and· sign the CDP, ~d commence development wi:fuin two years of the approval date specified below. You may apply for an extension of the pe:rmit pursuant to the Commission's regulations at Cal. Code Regs. title 14, sectiQn 13169. On De~ember 12, 2013 the Cajifornia Coastal Commission approved Co~tal Devek>pment Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350 requested by Mr & Mrs l<hosla subject to the attached·conditions for development" · consisting of: Construction of.a new, 10,000 square foQt (approx.) two ·story single family residence with attached garage, grading and four associated retaining walls on a one-acre vacantlot, more specifically described in the application filed in the Commission offices. Commission staff will not issue. the CDP until the "'prior to issuance" special conditions have be.en satisfied. I . The dev~lopment is within the coastal zone at 3344 Pafos Verdes Dtive West, Rancho Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County) If you have any questions regarding how to fulfill the "prior to iss~ce" Special Conditions for CDP No. A-5-RPV-12-350, please contact the Coastal Program Analyst identified below. Sincerely, CHARLES LESTER, Ex~J~ ~~oz Coastal Program Analyst ,,,• Attachments 3-78 ACKNOWLEDGMENT NOTICE. OF .INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT (Upon satisfaction of special conditions) Date: December 18, 2013 Permit Application No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Page2 The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this Notice and fully understands its contents, including all conditions imposed. Date Permittee Please sign and return one copy of this form to the Commission office at the above address. · STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Notice of Receipt and Ackllowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the pemrittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. · 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, then permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in.a reasonable-period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation Of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission, 4. Assignment.-The permit may be assigned. to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission and affidavit accepting all terms and COI.J.ditions of the permit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it 1s the intention of the Commission and the pennittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. ·Local Approval. Except as modified by the terms and conditions of this coastal development permit, 8.11 conditions imposed on the development by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in connection with its action on Case No. ZON2012-00141 as approved on September 25, 2012~ · remain binding and enforceaple by the City to the extent they would have been had the Coastal Commission not found the appeal to raise a substantial issue. Attachments 3-79 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT (Upon satisfaction of special conditions) Date: December 18, 2013 Permit Application No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Page3 2. Final Plans I Maximum Building Height A. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit,. for the Executive Directo~'s review and approval, two (2) full size sets of Final Project Plans (i.e.· site ·plan, floor plans, elevations, cross-sections, grading, foundation, etc.). These final project plans shall substantially conform to· the prelimi:iiary plans included as Exhibit 3 to the staff report dated November 21', 2013. The revised plans shall depict the ridgeline elevation of the house at an elevation no higher than 272.5. B. In.order to ensure that the public's view of the ocean (over the proposed project) is preserved from the public trail that abuts the landward edge of the project site, the ffual constructed ndgeline (maxitmn;ri) elevation of the proposed residence shall not exceed the horizon line, as · viewed· from the center of the public trail as described in part C of this special condition, and shall extend no higher into the ocean view than as depicted. on the photograph attached as Exhibit 4 to the Staff Report for Appeal No. A-S~RPV-12-350. C. At the completion of framing for the building, and prior to occupancy of the structure, the applicants shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director, and to the Director of Community Development of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a photograph of the proposed residence which verifies that the proposed residence is consistent with part B of this condition. The photograph shall be taken from the viewpoint defined as: a) the center of the public trail that abuts the landward edge of the project site (front . property line), b) at the midpoint of the subject property's front property line, and c) at a height of 5 feet 7 inches above the level of the trail' s surface. If, after review of the submitted photograph, the Executive Director finds that tl;ie residence is not consistent with Part B of this condition, the applicant or their successor in interest agrees to submit a completed Coastal Development Permit Amendment application to the Commission's South Coast Dis~ct office in order to reduce the height of the building to J;>e consistent wi'!h Part · B of this special.condition. . · . . . D. The applicants shall undertake development ~n accordance with the final plans approved by the Executive Direc~or. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a ··· Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally ~equired. 3. Landscaping and Fencing Plans. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit, for the written review and approval of the Executive Director, final landscape plEms and fencing plans for the subject site that shall demonstrate the following: A. Vegetated landscaped areas shall only consiSt of native plants or non-native drought tolerant plants, which are non~invasive, and shall include species which reflect the natural coastal sage scrub character of the peninsula, and the southern California coastline in general. No plant Attachments 3-80 NOTICE OF INTENt TO ISSUE PERMIT (Upon satisfaction of special conditions) Date: December 18, 2013 Permit Application No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Page4 species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the California Native Plant Society (http://www.CNPS.org/), the California Invasive Plant Council (http://www.cal-ipc.org/), or as may be identified from time to time by the State of California shall be employed or allowed to naturalize or persist on the site. No plant species listed as a "noxious weed" by the State of California or the U.S. Federal Government shall be utilized within the property. All plants shall be low water use plants as identified by California Department of Water Resources (See: www.water.ca.gov/ wateruseefficiency/docs/wucolsOO.pdf) B. The landscaping plan shall demonstrate that all species used, at maximum growth (width/height), will not reduce, obstruct, or in any way interfere with public views. The required Final Landscape Plans shall provide information regarding the maximum height and width of the proposed· vegetation. Landscaping shall be trimniedlmaintained such that impacts upon public views are avoided. Any replacement vegetation which is planted in the future shall be consistent with the terms of this Coastal Development Pemrit, and shall ensure the protection of views. Once planted, if the Executive Director determines that any landscaping is causing an impact upon public views, the applicant shall replace such landscaping with different plant species that meet the requirements of this special .condition, as directed by the Executive Director. C. Within the property's side yard corridors, defined as the first 10' measured from the south side property line or the fitst 15' measured from the north side·ptoperty line, for the entire length . of the lot, all landscaping shall be composed oflow-growiiig plants which Will not exceed a.ti elevation of 270'. D. All landscaping, located between the residence and Palos Verdes Drive West, not including the side yard areas defined in "c" above, shall be composed of species which do not exceed the ridgeline of the house, which is at a maximum elevation of 272.5, and shall be maintained at that height to preserve views from the street and public" trail toward the ocean. All walls and structures located between the residence and Palos Verdes Drive West shall not exceed the ridgeline of the.house, which is at a maximum elevation of272.5; E. To preserve views of the ocean from Palos Verdes Drive, in the side yard corridors and rear yard area, all landscaping, walls, and structures shall be in compliance with the restrictions on heights located in .the City's Development Code, but in no case shall exceed a maximum · elevation of270'. F. All fencing located throughout the subject property shall comply with the following ··· requirements: · 1. Fencing within the side yard corridor, defined in "c" above, may exceed elevation 270' and reach a maximum height of 6', provided the f~ncing is limited to visually permeable designs and materials, such as wrought iron. New fencing shall comply with· the limits on height and design as set forth in this condition, and shall be consistent with· the City's Development Code. All bars, beams, or other non-visually penneable materials used in the construction of a fence above elevation 270' shall be no more than one inch in thickness/width and shall be placed no less than 12 inches apart in distance. Alternative designs may be allowed only if the Executive Director detemtlnes that such designs are consistent with the intent of this condition and serve to minimize adverse effects to public views of the ocean. · Attachments 3-81 NOTICE OF.INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT (Upon satisfaction of special conditions) Date: December 18, 2013 Permit Application No. A-5-RPV-12-350 · Page 5 2. The existing 6' tall, legal non-conforming wrought iron fence along the :f!ont property line is permitted to remain. In the event the existing front property line fence is removed (including the replacement of 50% or more of the existing structure), the new fence will be required to comply with the requirements of this condition, and all current requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 3. Pool fencing shall be located outside of the side yard .corridors, as defined in 'b' above. 4. Drainage And Polluted Runoff Control Plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL .DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director, two (2) copies of a final Drainage and Runoff Control Plan,.including supporting calcul1;1tions. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or qualified licensed professional and shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) including site design and source control measures designed to control pollutants and minimize the volume and velocity of stormwatet ·and dry weather runoff leaving the developed site. In ~ddition to the specifications above, the consulting civil engineer or qualified licensed professional shall c~rtify in writing that the final Drainage and·Runoff Control Plan is.in substantial conformance with the · following minimum requirements: A. BMPs should consist of site design elements and/or landscape based features or systems that serve to maintain site permeability, avoid directly connected impervious area and/or retain, infiltrate, or filter runoff fromrooftops, driveways and other hardscape areas on site, where feasible. Examples of sucJ:i features include but are not limited to porous pavement, pavers, rain gardens, vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, cisterns. · B. An efficient irrigation system based on hydrozones and utilizing drip emitters or micro-sprays or other efficient des~gn ~houl<l'be utilized :for any landscaping requiring water application. C .. Runoffshall be conveyed off site in a non-erosive manner. Energy dissipating measures shall be installed at the terminus of outflow drains. D. For projects located on a hillside, slope, or which may otherwise be prone to. instability, final dramage plans should be approved by the project consulting geotechnical engineer .. E. Should any of the project's surface or subsurface drainage/filtration structures or other BMPs fail or result in increased erosion, the applicants/landowners or successor-in-interest shall be "' responsible for any necessary repairs to the drainage/filtration system or BMPs: and restoratfon of the eroded area. Should repairs or restoration become necessary, prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration work, the applicants shall submit a repair and restoration plan to the Executive Director to determine if an amendment or new coastal development perm,it is required to authorize such work. F. ·The final Drainage and Runoff Control Plan shall be in conformance with the site/ development plans approved by the Coastal Commission. Any· changes to the Coastal Commission approved site/development plans required by the consulting civil engineer/water quality professional or engin~ering geologist shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the Coastal Commission approved final site/development plans shall occur without an Attachments 3-82 NOTICE OF. INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT · (Upon satisfaction of special conditions) Date: December 18, 2013 Permit Application No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Page6 amendment .to the coastal development permit, unless the Executive Director deterrhines that no amendment is required. 5. Future Development. This coastal development permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 13250(b) (6), the exemptions otherwise provided in Public Resources Code Section 30610(a) shall not apply to the development governed by Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350. Accordingly~ any future improvements to the single-family house authorized by this permit, including but not limited to repair and maintenance identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources Section 30610( d) and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 13252(a)-(b), shall require ail amendment to Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350 from the Commission or shall require an additional coastal development.permit from the Commission or from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless the Executive Director determines that no coastal development permit or amendment is required. 6. Deed Restriction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCp OF THE COASTAL DEVELOP11ENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval documentation demonstrating that the landowners have executed and recorded against the parcel(s) governed by this permit a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the .Executive Director: (1) indicating that, pursuant to this permit, the California Coastal Corrimission has authorized development on the subject property, subject to terms and conditions that restrict the use and enjoyment of that property; and (2) imposing the Special Conditions of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property. The deed restriction shall include a legal description of the entire parcel or parcels govemed by this permit. The deed restriction shall also indicate that, in the event of an extinguishm.ent or termination of the deed restriction for a.:ily reason, the terms and conditions of this permit shall· continue to restrict the use and enjoyment of the subject property so long as either this permit or the development it authorizes, or any part, modification, or amendment thereof; remains in existence on or with respect to the subject property. NOTE: IF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE THAT DOCUMENT(S) BE RECORDED WITII THE COUNTY RECORDER, YOU WILL RECEIVE THE LEGAL FORMS TO COMPLETE (WITH INSTRUCTIONS). IF. YOU HA VE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE DISTRICT OFFICE. G:NOl2013JDA:nr ... ·· Attachments 3-83 California Coastal Commission (Notification of Final Appeal Action) Attachments 3-84 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 JAN 0 3 2014 COMMISSION NOTIFICATl.6ALSfD1:vr:toPMEN1 FINAL APPEAL ACTION DEPARTMFt\,-, DATE: 12/19/2013 Commission Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 TO: City of Rancho Palos Verdes FROM: California Coastal Commission RE: Appeal to the California Coastal Commission of Local Permit No. ZON2012 Applicant(s): Mr. & Mrs. Khosla Description: Construction of a 10.000 square foot (approx.) two-story single family residence with attached garage. grading and four associated retaining walls on a one-acre vacant lot. Location: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Los Angeles County Local Action: Approval with Conditions Pursuant to 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13120, please be advised that the California Coastal Commission, on December 12. 2013 , took the following final action on this appeal: a. x substantial issue found b. approval c. x approval of a Coastal Development Permit with conditions d. denial e. other: Any terms and conditions of the local decision remain unchanged where the Commission vote is "no substantial issue". Where the Commission vote is for "@pproval" or "approval with conditions", the Commission decision replaces the local coastal permit decision. Approval by the Commission may include modified or Commission-imposed conditions. Please cont~ us if yo~u have any questi9ns. By: /'~a Title: stal Program Analyst CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ,,/' Attachments 3-85 California Coastal Commission (Staff Report for 12-12-13 Coastal Appeal Hearing) Attachments 3-86 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor CALIFORNIA COAST AL COMMISSION Filed: 49th Day: 1212612012 Waived J. Del Arroz-LB 1112612013 12112/2013 South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 Th20a Staff: Staff Report: Hearing Date: STAFF REPORT: APPEAL SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE AND DE NOVO HEARING Appeal Number: Local Government: Local Decision: Applicant: Agent: Project Location: Project Description: Appellants: A-5-RPV-12-350 City Of Rancho Palos Verdes Approval With Conditions Mr. and Mrs. Khosla McCabe and Company 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County Construction of a 10,000 square foot (approx.) two story single-family residence with attached garage, grading, and four associated retaining walls on a one-acre vacant lot. Coastal Commissioners Brian Brennan & Mary Shallenberger, Chair IMPORTANT NOTE The Commission will not take public testimony during the 'substantial issue' phase of the appeal hearing unless at least three (3) commissioners request it. If the Commission finds that the appeal raises a substantial issue, the de novo phase of the hearing will immediately follow at this meeting,-during which it will take public testimony. Written comments may be submitted to the Commission during either phase of the hearing. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Commission determine that the appeal raises a SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed. The submitted appeal raises a substantial issue regarding the City-approved development's conformance with the visual resource protection policies of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The motion to carry out the staff recommendation is on page 4. (Continued on page 2). I Attachments 3-87 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial Issue and De Novo SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION (continued) The proposed project is the construction of a new single family residence on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West, the first public road paralleling the sea, and the main thoroughfare for those travelling north towards Palos Verdes Estates. Palos Verdes Drive is used by both residents and visitors to access the coastal zone. The street offers sweeping, panoramic views of the ocean and coastline. These coastal views are protected by the City's certified Land Use Plan, which requires that new development not encroach into coastal views from Palos Verdes Drive. In this case, the City-approved project would extend into this viewshed and unnecessarily block protected scenic views. Therefore, the project, as approved by the City, is inconsistent with the view protection policies of the City's certified Land Use Plan. However, ifthe project is modified to lower the height of the proposed residence, and conditioned to ensure that the views of the coast are protected, the project would conform with the visual protection policies of the City's certified Land Use Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission, after a public de novo hearing, approve the permit with special conditions that require the height of the proposed residence to be lowered in order to protect the public's view of the coast. The applicants agree with the staff recommendation. See page 12 for the motion to approve the coastal development permit. Staff Note: The appeal of the City's September 25, 2012 approval of Local CDP 2012- 00141 was filed by Commissioners Brennan and Shallenberger in December 2012. No other appeals were filed. Subsequent to the filing of the Commissioners' appeal, the applicants worked with Commission and City staff to identify an alternative project that would be more protective of shoreline views. In September 2013, the applicants requested a Revised Local CDP from the City for a revised project with a lower roof height. However, after the City's Planning Commission approved the Revised CDP, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. Subsequently, the applicants decided to withdraw their application with the City for the Revised CDP, and asked the Commission to proceed with the pending appeal by Commissioners Brennan and Shallenberger of the original Local CDP. As stated above, there are persons who opposed the applicants' 2013 request for the Revised CDP when it was heard at the City. However, the Commission is acting on the permit that the City approved on September 25, 2012. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 13117, only the applicant, persons who opposed the September 2012 application before the local government (or their representatives), and ··· the local government are eligible to speak regarding the Substantial Issue portion of this hearing. All other persons may only submit comments in writing during the Substantial Issue portion of the hearing. However, anyone who wishes to may participate in the De Novo portion of the hearing. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 13016, all interested parties will be notified of the subject hearing, including any parties who participated in any local hearing for the original CDP or the Revised CDP. 2 Attachments 3-88 TABLE OF CONTENTS A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ............................... 4 II. APPEAL PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 4 A. Grounds For Appeal ............................................................................................. 5 B. Qualifications To Testify Before The Commission ............................................. 6 III. APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS .......................................................................... 7 IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ...................... 8 A. Project Location And Description ........................................................................ 8 B. Local Government Action .................................................................................. 10 C. Substantial Issue, Analysis .................................................................................. 10 V. MOTION AND RESOLUTION ON THE DE NOVO HEARING ...................... 12 VI. STANDARD CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 13 VII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 13 VIII. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS FOR DE NOVO HEARING ...................... 18 A. Project Description And Location ...................................................................... 18 B. Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 18 C. Natural Environment I Marine Resources .......................................................... 22 D. Deed Restriction ................................................................................................. 24 E. Public Access and Recreation ............................................................................ 24 F. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ................................................. 25 APPENDICES Appendix A -Substantive File Documents EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 -Appeal by Commissioners Brian Brennan and Mary Shallenberger, Chair Exhibit 2 -Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 -Site Plans Exhibit 4 -Photograph of Story Poles Exhibit 5 -View Simulations Exhibit 6 -Public Letters 3 Attachments 3-89 A-5-RPV-12-350 (KJ10sla) Staff Report: Substantial Issue and De Novo I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-5-RPV-J 2-350 raises NO substantial issue with respect to the grou11ds 011 which th e appeal has b ee11 filed under § 30603 (~{the Coastal Act. Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in a de novo hearing on the application, and adoption of the following resolution and finding s. Pas sage of this motion will result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and the local action will become final and effective. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of the m ajority of the appointed Commissioners present. Resolution: The Commission hereby finds that Appeal No. A-5-RPV-J 2-350 prese11ts a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has bee11 filed under§ 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding consistency with the Certified Local Coastal Plan a11dlor the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. II . APPEAL PROCEDURES After certification of Local Coastal Programs, the Coastal Act provides for limited appeals to the Coastal Commission of certain local government actions on Coastal Development Permits. Developments approved by cities or counties may be appealed if they are located within the appealable areas, such as those loc ated b etween the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, or within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 3 00 feet of the mean high tide line or inland extent of any beach or top of the seaward face of a coastal bluff. Furthermore, developments approved by counties may be appealed if they are not a designated "principal permitted use" under the certified LCP. Finally, any local government action on a proposed development that would constitute a major public work or a major energy facility may be appealed , whether approved or denied by the city or county. [Coastal Act Section 30603(a)]. Section 30603(a)(l) of the Coastal Act establishes the project site as being in an appealable area because it i s located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. Section 30603 of the Coastal Act states, in part: (a) After cert(fi.cation of its Local Coastal Program, an action taken by a local government on a Coastal D evelopment Permit application may be app ealed to the Commission for only the.following types of developments: 4 Attachments 3-90 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo (I) D evelopm ents approved by th e local governm e111 between the sea and th e.fir s t public roa d paralleling the sea or wW1in 300feet q f th e inland extent of any b ea ch or of the m ean high tide lin e of th e sea wh ere there is no beach. ·vrhiche ver is th e g reater distan ce. (2) D evelopn1ents approved by the local government not included within paragraph (I) tha t are located on tidelands , submerged lands , public trust lands , within 1 OOfeet of any wetland, es tu01 y , s tream . or within 300fe et of the top qf th e sea,,.,,·ard.face of any coas tal bit{{{ A. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The grounds for appeal of a local government action approving a Coastal Development Permit for development in the appealable area are stated in Section 30603(b )( 1 ), which states: (b)(J) The grounds .for an appeal purs uant to subdivis ion (a ) s hall be limited to an allegation that the development does not con.form to the standards s et forth in th e certified Local Coastal Program or the public access policies s et.forth in this divis ion. The action currently before the Commission is to find whether th er e is a "substantial issue " or "no sub stantial issue" raised by the appeal of the local approval of the proposed proj ec t. Sections 30621 and 30625(b)(2) of the Coastal Act require a d e novo hearing of the appealed project unles s the Commission determines that no substantial is sue exist s with respect to the grounds for appeal. The term "substantial issue" i s not defined in the Coastal Act or its implementing regulations. Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 1311 S(b) simply indicates that the Commission will hear an appeal unless it "finds that the appea l raises no significant question a s to conformity with the certified local coastal program" or, if applic able, the public acc ess and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Jn previous deci sions on appeals, the Commission has at times, on a case-by-case basi s , us ed the following factors in determining the substantial issue question 1 . The degree of fa ctual and legal support for the local government's decis ion that the development is cons istent or inconsistent with the certified LCP ; 2 . The extent and scope of the dev elopment as approv ed or denied by the local government; 3. The significanc e of the coastal resources affected by the decision; 4 .. The precedential value of the local government's decision for future interpretations of its LCP; 5. Whether the app eal rais es only local is su es, or tho se of regional or statewide interest 5 Attachments 3-91 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Kho sla) Staff Report: Substantial Is sue and De Novo If Commission staff recommends a finding of substantial issue, and there is no motion from the Commission to find no substantial issue, the substantial issue question will be considered moot, and the Commission will procee d to the de novo public hearing on the merits of the projec t. The de novo h e aring will be scheduled at the same hearing or a subsequent Commission hearing. A de novo public hearing on the merits of the project uses the c e11ified LCP as the standard ofreview. In addition, for projects located between the first public road and the sea, findings must be made that any approved project is consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Title 14 California Code of Regulations sections 13110-13120 further explain the appeal hearing process . The grounds for the current appeal include contentions that the approved development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified LCP regarding protection of scemc views. B. QUALIFICATIONS TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMISSION The Commis sion will not take public testimony during the 'substantial issue' phase of the appeal hearing unless at least three (3) commissioners request it. If the Commission decides to hear arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, proponents and opponents will have an opportunity to address whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. As noted in Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 13117 , the only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at the substantial issue portion of the appeal process are the applicants, persons who opposed the application before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government. Testimony from other persons must be s ubmitted in writing. Upon the close of the public hearing regarding whether the appeal raises a substantial issue, the Commission will vote on the substantial issue matter. It takes a majority of Commissioners present to find that no substantial issue is raised by the local approval of the subject project. If the Commi ss ion find s that the appeal raises a sub stantial issue, the de novo phase of the hearing will immediately follow at this meeting , during which it will take public testimony . A de novo public hearing on the merits of the project uses the certified LCP as the standard of review . In addition, for projects located between the first public road and th e sea, findings must be made that any approved project is consistent with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Title 14 California Code of Regulations s ections 13110-13120 further explain the appeal hearing process. 6 Attachments 3-92 III. APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo 1. The City-Approved Project Raises An Issue As To Consistency With The Visual Resources Protection Policies Of The LCP Although the LCP requires the protection of ocean views from Palos Verdes Drive (PV Drive); the City-approved single-family residence has a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available across th e vacant 1-acre project site. The project site, 3344 Palos Verdes Dri ve West, is located in Subregion 1 as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan. Policy No. 8 of Subregion 1 states: Require proposed d evelopments on lands affected by view corridors to maintain the reso urces. According to the City, the project site is not identified as being within a specific visual corridor. Nevertheless, th e City acknowledges that the Coastal Specific Plan also protects views of the ocean across sites that are not within a designated visual corridor. Specifically, the Plan states: A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West I South I 25'h Street Corridor has visual aspects which qualifY as views. Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qual(fy here ... To protect this visual relationship between the Drive and ocean in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, n o buildings should project into a zone measured 2' down-arc from horizontal as measured along the s hortest distance between the viewing station and the coastlin e. (Page C-1 I, C-12, Corridors Element, Coastal Spec(fic Plan. According to th e City's analysis, thi s policy wo uld require that the ridgeline of the proposed re sidence be limited to an elevation of 268.0 as measured from PV Drive, the viewing station. However, the City approved the proposed single family residence with a height exceeding this height limit (by 8. 73 ')thereby allowing th e structure to project significantly into th e public's existing view of the ocean. 2. There Is Insufficient Justification For Projecting Into The Viewshed The City's findings state that the project as approved is consistent wi th the visual resources protection provisions of the City 's LUP and that the project as sited and designed is the best alternative for the construction of a new home on the downs lope lot. The C ity 's rationale for exceeding the height limit included: (a) the Development Code allows a hou se with a maximum height of 16 ' (279' elevation); (b) the applicant ha s proposed a residence with a height that is Je ss than the maximum hei ght (276. 73' elevation); (c) the applicant i s proposing a l arge front yard setback ; and (d) the applicant has proposed to grade the site to provide a single story fa9ade from PV Drive. However, the City did not require the increased front yard setback. 7 Attachments 3-93 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial Issue and De Novo The City · s findings also state that additional grading to further lower the height of the strncture is infeasible, requiring over 3,000 cubic yards ( cy) of additional grading. However, the findings do not explain why this amount of additional grading would be necessary to remove the projection of the structure into the ocean views especially given that the project includes 3,206 cy of grading (2 ,988 cy of cut and 218 cy fill) which includes 1,044 cy of grading for a swimming pool , spa, and landscaped yard area in the rear yard and a level courtyard in the front yard . Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading, only 1,281 cy is for the home and an additional 633 cy is for a circular driveway in the front yard area. 3. Alternatives Exist That Would Reduce Impacts To Public Views. Although the local approval included a brief discussion of additional grading to further lower the height of the structure, this alternative was dismissed as being infeasible. The local approval did not consider other feasible alternatives that could result in a project that is consistent with the visual resources protection policies of the certified Land Use Plan. The project site is a large vacant lot that slopes away from the frontage road . The proposed 10 ,382 sq. ft. home with a 1,027 sq. ft. garage (total size 11,409 sq. ft.) is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes in the area. Only one other home in the area is larger. Perhaps a smaller home would have less visual impact. The proposed home could also be sited further downslope or located elsewhere on the I-acre site, thereby reducing the visual impact. These alternatives were not explored. As approved by the City, the proposed development projects more than eight vertical feet into the view corridor and is therefore inconsistent with the visual protection policies of the certified LCP. The City-approved project would have a significant adverse impact on existing public views to the ocean available from PV Drive and sets precedence for future development on the adjacent and nearby lots. IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE The Commission hereby finds and declares: A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1. Project Location The subject site is a vacant 43,484 sq. ft. inland lot located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, Palos Verdes Drive West (abbreviated below as PV Drive). PV Drive is a four lane roadway, with the N011hbound and Southbound lanes separated by a sloping landscaped median approximately 40 feet wide. Due to sloping topography, the Northbound lane is approximately 4 feet higher than the Southbound lane. A public trail is located adjacent to the site, between the Southbound lane of PV Drive and the subject site. 8 Attachments 3-94 A-5-RPV -12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo The subject si te was previously developed with a single family residence which was demolished pursuant to CDP 148 in January 1999, which also approved a new single family resi dence on the site that was never constructed . The site has a designated land use of Low Density Residential (1 dwelling unit per acre). The site is lo cated in the northern part of Rancho Palos Verdes, approximately 0.25 miles from of the limits of th e City of Palos Verdes Estates and located approximately 600 feet inland of the coastal bluff (Exhibit 2). The vacant area located immediately to the north of the site was restricted by th e City as open space during the development of the Lunada Pointe Tract. The two lots immediately to the south of the site are developed with two single family residences which were constructed prior to the Coastal Act. The nearest public access point is an overlook area at Calle Entradero, approximately 650 feet to th e south of the site. Additionally, a use trail down the bluff edge to the rocky shore is located at Christmas Tree Cove, approximately 0.3 miles to the north. 2. Project Description The project approved by the City consists of the construction of a new I 0,3 82 square foot, two story residence with a maximum ridgeline elevation of276.73 ' (i .e . the highest point of the residence is located at 276.73 feet above sea level). Also proposed is the construction of a circular driveway in the front yard leading to a l ,02 7 square foot garage, 2,988 cubic yards of cut and 218 cubic ya rds of fill , pool, spa, trellis, firepit , barbeque, landscaping, and four retaining walls. 3. Permit History The following permits were approved by the City in the area of the subject site: CDP No. and Date Address Ridgeline Sq Ft Lot Area CDP 160 -July 2000 6 Marguerite 281 10 ,082 50,565 CDP 113 -Aug. 1993 3300 PVDW 281 13,736 48,684 CDP 148 -Jan. 1999 3344 PVDW 276 9697 43,484 (Subject CDP) CDP 3344 PVDW 276.73 10,382 43,484 ZON2012-00141 Sep. 2012 - These previous City decisions resulted in the approval of residences which were as high or higher than the subject CDP. Although the existing residences at 6 Marguerite Drive and 3300 PV Drive appear to impact the public 's view of the ocean, no appeals of the C ity's decision were filed. Commission staff pursues appeals of projects based on the available information, how consistent the project is with the LCP, the significance of the resource being affected, and considering workload constraints. In this case, an additional factor is that CDP Nos. 148 and 160 were incorrectly noticed by the City as consisting of development that was not appealable to the Commission, due to an incorrect 9 Attachments 3-95 A-5-RPY-12-350 (Khosla) St aff Report: Substantial Issue and De Novo interpretation of the term 'first public road paralleling the sea: Commission staff notified the City of the location of the correct appealable area in October 2012. 8. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION Local Coastal Development Permit 20I2-00141 was approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on September 25, 20 12 . Based on the date of receipt of the Notice of Final Action, the ten (I 0) working d ay appeal period for local Coastal Development Permit 2012-00141 began on December 13, 2012 and ran through D ecember 27, 2012. An appeal of local Coastal Development Permit 2012-00141 was received from Commissioners Brian Brennan and Mary Shallenberger on December 26, 2012 (see Exhibit 1 ), within the allotted ten ( 10) working day appeal period. No other appeals were filed. Since the filing of Appeal A-5 -RPV-12-350 in late 2012, Commission staff has worked with the applicant to identify feasible alternatives to the residence approved by the City. In September 2013, after consultation with Commission and City staff, the applicant identified an alternative proj ect which would minimiz e impacts to scenic views . Subsequently, the applicant asked the City to revi se the City's Coastal Development Permit to include the alternative project design. On October 8, 2013, the City Planning Commission approved after public hearing Revised CDP 2012-00141. On October 22, 2013 , opponents to the project filed an appeal of the Revi se d CDP to the City Council. On November 5, 2013, the applicant submitted a letter to the Cit y and the Coastal Commission staff requesting the City withdraw the request for a Revised CDP, and asking th e Commission staff to proceed with the pending appeal on the original Coastal Development Permit 2012-00 14 1. Thus, the subject of this st aff report is the appeal of Coastal Development Permit 2012-00141 , approved by the City in September 20 12, and appealed by Commissioners Brennan and Shallenberger in December 2012. C . SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ANALYSIS The project site, 3344 PY Drive, is located in Subregion I as identified in the City 's Coastal Specific Plan . Policy No. 8 of Subregion 1 states: Require proposed developments 011 lands affected by view corridors to maintain the resources. The Corridors Element of the City's certified Land Use Plan states: A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West I South I 251 h Street Corridor has visual aspects which qual[fY as views. Those sections of the Drive which have 10 Attachments 3-96 A-5-RPV-12-35 0 (Khosla) Subs tan tial Issue a nd De Novo ocean views qual!fj1 here and a m ajority of th e land on the off~lwre side .falls within the foreground <?(som e portion of the Drive which is a vi ewillg s tation . ..... 28 tw*af .. cUoNI ~-··~-~ ------~ To protect this vis ual relationship between the Drive and ocea n in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, no buildings should project into a zone measured 2 ' down -arc from horizontal as measured along th e s hortest di stance between the viewing s tation and the coastline. The C it y's Land Use Plan protect s both: a) views lo c ated inside specific visual corridors identified by the LUP, and b) v iew s from Palos Verdes Drive (PY Drive) located outside o f specifi c visual corridors. For v iews located outside a specific corridor, such as the subj ect site, the LUP states that a view er at PY Drive should be able to look hori zontall y, and then tilt their view 2 degrees down , and see clear views out toward s the ocean. Some of the most notable coastal resources within the City of Rancho Palo s Verde s are the views available from the main thoroughfare , PV Drive. While view s in some areas have b een blocked by development or v egetation, most of PV Drive offers sweeping, panoramic views of the ocean and coastline. PV Drive i s used by both residents and visitors to access and view the coastal zo ne, and as such the protection of these views ri ses to the level of statewide significance. In past Commission actions in the City, such as the Terranea development (CDP A-5-RPV-02-324), the Commission has included provisions such as restrictions on the height and location of development to ensure the protection of b lue water v iews from PY Drive. The project as approved b y th e City does not conform to the view protection r equirement in th e LUP . The viewing st ation, PV Dri ve, is lo cated at elevation 26 8'. T he C it y, in it s action , identified a height of 268' as th e elevation w hich would be co nsistent w ith the 2 degree down -arc standard . The resi dence approved by the City is not con si stent with thi s standard . The proposed resi d en ce has a maximum elevation of 27 6. 73 ', an encroachment of 8.73 feet into the protecte d view. Thus , the City's action raises a sub stanti al i ssue regarding whether the project is cons istent with the v iew protecti on policie s of th e Ci t y's certifi ed Land Use Plan. 11 Attachments 3-97 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial l ssue and De Novo There ar e feasible alternative designs which would reduce the project's impacts to views. After discussions with staff a fter the filing of th e appeal, the applicant has identified an alternative design which includes: 1) lo wering th e finished floor elevation of the res id ence through additional grading; 2) lowering the finished fl oor elevation b y moving the r esidence toward s th e rear of the sloping lot; and 3) reductions in th e heights of the roof and chimneys. These modification s, which would reduce the project's impacts on views, were not included in the City's action. Therefore, the City's action does not appear to be the least dam ag in g feasible altern ative, and the project's impacts on v ie ws could h ave been further avoided . The City's action app ears to conclude that the proj ect" s impacts to scenic views, th ough avoidable, are consistent with the visual protection policies of the Ci t y 's certified Land Use Plan . This has the potential to prejudice future interpretations of the City's LCP, and result in the approval of other impacts to scenic views in the futur e . The protection of th e magnificent coastal view s in thi s region is of statewide interest. Therefore the City's approval of the development raises a substantial issue with regard s to the view protecti on policies set forth in the City's certified Land Use Plan. V. MOTION AND RESOLUTION ON THE DE NOVO HEARING Motion: I move that th e Co mmission approv e Coasta l Developmelll Permit #A -5 -RP V-J 2- 350 pursuant to the staff recommendation. Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of thi s motion will result in approval of the permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of th e Commissioners present. Resolution: The Commission hereby APPROVES a coastal d evelopm ent permit for th e proposed d evelopment and adopts th e.fi ndings set forth below on grounds that th e development a s conditioned will b e in conformity with th e p olicies of th e Certlfied City of R an cho Palos Verdes Local Coastal Program and the public access and recreation policies of th e Coastal Act. Approval of the p ermit complies with th e Cal!fornia Environmental Quality Act because eith er J)feasible mitigation m easures and/or alternatives have been inc01porated to s ubstantially lessen any s ignificant adverse effects of th e development on th e environment, or 2) th ere are 110 furtherfeasible mitig ation measur es or alternatives that wo uld s ubstantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of th e development on the environmen t. 12 Attachments 3-98 VJ. STANDARD CONDITIONS A-5-RPV-l 2-350 (Khosla) Substantial Iss ue and De Novo This permit is granted subj ec t to the followin g s tandard conditions : 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the pennit, signed by the pennittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the term s and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2 . Expiration. If de velopment has not commenced, the p ermi t will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the appli cation. Development sha ll be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must b e made prior to the expiration date . 3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 4 . Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee file s with the Commission an affida vit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land . These terms and conditions shall b e perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. VII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Local Approval. Except as modified b y the terms and conditions of thi s coastal deve lopment permit, all conditions imposed on the dev elopment by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in connection with it s action on Case No. ZON2012-00141 as approved on September 25, 2012, remain binding and enforceable by the City to the extent they would have been had the Coastal Comrniss ion not found the appeal to rai se a substantial issue. 2. Fin al Plans I Maximum Building Height A. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit, for the Executive Director's review and approval, two (2) full size sets of Final Project Plans (i .e. site plan, floor plans, elevations, cross-sec tions , grading, foundation, etc.). These final project plans shall substantiall y conform to the preliminary p lans included as Exhibit 3 to the staff report dated November 21, 2 013 . The revised plans shall depict the rid ge line elevation of the hou se at an elevation no higher than 272.5. B. In order to ensure that the public 's view of the ocean (over the propo sed project) is preserved from the public trail that abuts th e landward edge of the proj ect site, the final constructed ridgeline (maximum) elevation of the proposed re sidence shall not exceed t he hori zon line, as viewed from the center of the public trail as describ ed in part C of thi s special condition, and shall extend no 13 Attachments 3-99 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Staff Report : Substantial Issue and De Novo higher into the ocean view than as depicted on the photograph attached as Exhibit 4 to the Staff Report for Appeal No. A -5-RPV-12-350 . C. At the completion of framing for the building, and prior to occupancy of the structure, the applicants shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director, and to the Director of Community Development of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a photograph of the proposed residence which verifies that the proposed re sidence is consistent with part B of this condition. The photograph shall be taken from the viewpoint defined as : a) the center of the public trail that abuts the landward edge of the project site (front property line), b) at the midpoint of the subject property 's front property line, and c) at a height of 5 feet 7 inches above the level o f the trail's surface. If, after review of the submitted photograph, th e Executive Director finds that the residence is not consistent with Part B of this condition, the applicant or their successor in interest agrees to submit a completed Coastal Development Permit Amendment application to the Commi ss ion's South Coast Di strict office in order to reduce the height of the building to be consist ent with Part B of thi s special condition. D. The applicants shall undertake development in accordance with the final plans approved by the Executive Director. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executiv e Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required . 3 . Landscaping and Fencing Plans. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit, for the written review and approval of the Executive Director, final landscape plans and fencing plans for the subject site that shall demonstrate the following: A . Vegetated landscaped areas shall only consist of native plants or non-native drought tolerant plants, which are non-invasive, and shall include species which re flect the n atural coastal sage scrub charac ter of the peninsula, and the southern California coastline in general. No plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the California Native Plant Society (http://www.CNPS .org/), the California Invasive Plant Council (http ://www.cal-ipc.org/), or as may be identified from time to time by the State of California shall be employed or allowed to naturalize or persi st on the site. No plant spe cies listed as a "noxi o us weed" by the State of Cal ifornia or the U.S. Federal Government shall be utilized within the property . All plants shall be low water u se plants as identified by California Department of Water Resources (See: www.water.ca .gov/ 14 Attachments 3-100 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Is sue and De Novo B. The landscaping plan shall demonstrate that all species used, at maximum growth (width/height), will not reduce, obstruct, or in any way interfere with public views . The required Final Landscape Plans sha ll provide information regarding th e maximum height and width of the proposed vegetation. Landscaping shall be trimmed/maintained such that impacts upon public views are avoided. Any replacement vegetation which is planted in th e future shall be consistent with the terms of this Coastal Development Permit, and shall ensure the protection of views. Once planted, if th e Executive Director determines that any landscaping is causing an impact upon public views, the applicant shall replace such landscaping with different plant species that meet the requirements of this special condition, as directed by the Executive Director. C. Within the property's side yard corridors, defined as the first IO ' measured from the south si de property line or the first 15' measured from the north side property line, for the entire length of the lot , all land scaping shall be composed of low-growing plants which wi ll not exceed an elevation of 270'. D. All landscaping, located between the r es idence and Palos Verdes Drive West, not including the side yard areas defined in "c" above, shall be composed of sp ec ies which do not exceed the ridgeline of the house, which is at a maximum elevation of 272.5, and shall be maintained at that height to preserve views from th e street and public trail toward the ocean. All walls and structures located between the re sidence and Palos Verdes Drive West shall not exceed the ridgeline of the house, which is at a maximum el evation of 272.5. E. To preserve views of the ocean from Palo s Verdes Drive, in the side yard corridors and rear yard area, all landscaping, walls, and structures shall be in compli ance with the restri ctions on heights located in the Ci t y's Development Code, but in no case shall exceed a maximum elevation of 270'. F. All fencing located throughout the subject property sh all comply with the following requirements: 1. Fencing within the si de yard corridor, defined in "c" above, may exceed elevation 270' and reach a maximum height of 6', provided the fencing is limi ted to visually permeabl e designs and materials, such as wrought iron. New fencing shall comply with the li mits on height and design as set forth in thi s condition, and shall be consistent with the City's Development Code. All bars, beams, or other non-visually permeable materials u sed in the construction of a fence above elevati on 270' shall be no more than one inch in thickness/width and shall be placed no l ess than 12 inches apart in distance . Alternative designs may be allowed only if the Executive Director detennines that such designs are con sistent with th e intent of thi s condition and serve to minimize adverse effects to public views of the ocean. 2. The existing 6' tall , lega l non-conforming wrought iron fence along the front property line is permitted to remain. In the event the existing front 15 Attachments 3-101 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial Issu e and De Novo property line fence is removed (incl uding the replacement of 50% or m ore of the existing structure), the new fence w ill be requi red to comply with the requirements of this condition, and a ll current requirements of th e City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 3. Pool fencing shall b e located outs ide of the side yard corridors, as defined in · b ' above. 4 . Drainage And Polluted Runoff Control Plan . PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COAST AL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant s shall submit for the review and approval of the Execut ive Director, two (2) copi es o f a final Drainage and Runoff Control Plan, including supporting calculations. T h e plan shall be prepared b y a li cen sed civil engineer or qualified licensed professional and shall in corporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) including si t e design and source control measures designed to control pollutants and minimize the volume and velocity of stormwater and dry weather runoff leaving the d eveloped site. In addition to the s pecifications above, the consulting ci vil engineer or qualified li cen sed professional s hall certify in writing that the fin al Drainage and Runoff Control Plan is in subst a ntial conforma n ce with the following minimum re quirements: A. BMPs should consist o f site desi gn elements and/or landscape based fe atures or system s that serve to maintain site penneability, a void directly c onnected imp ervious area and/or r etain, infiltrate, or filter runoff from rooftops, driveways and other hardscap e areas on site , where feasibl e. Examples of s u ch features include but are not limited to porous pavement , pavers, r ain gardens, vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, cisterns. B . An efficient irrigation system based on hydrozones and utiliz ing drip emitt ers or micro-sprays or other efficient d esign should be utilized for an y landscaping requiring w ate r applicati on. C . Runoff shall be conveyed off site in a non-erosive m anner. Energy di ssipating measures s hall be installed at the terminus of outfl ow drains. D . For projects located o n a hill s ide, s lope, or which may otherwi se be prone to insta bility , fin a l dra inage plans s hould b e approved by t h e project con sulting geotechnical engineer. E. Should any o f th e project 's surface or s ubs urfac e drainage/filtration structure s or other BMPs fail or r esult in incr e a sed erosion , the applicants/landowners or s u ccessor-in-interest shall be responsibl e for any necessary repairs to the drainage/filtrati on system or BMPs and restoration of the eroded area. Should repairs or restoration become nec essary, prior to the commencement of such repair or restorati on work, the applicants s h all submit a repair and res toration plan t o the Executive Director to determine if an ame ndment or n ew coastal development permit is re quired to authorize such work. 16 Attachments 3-102 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo F. The final Drainage and Runoff Control Plan shall be in confom1ance with the site/ development plans approved by the Coastal Commission. Any changes to the Coastal Commission approved site/development plans required by the consulting civil engineer/water quality professional or engineering geologist shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the Coastal Commission approved final site/development plans shall occur without an amendment to the coastal development permit, unless the Executive Director detennines that no amendment is required . 5. Future Development. This coastal development permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. A-5-RPY-12-350. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section l 3250(b) (6), the exemptions otherwise provided in Public Resources Code Section 30610(a) shall not apply to the development governed by Coastal Development Permit No. A-5- RPV-12-350 . Accordingly, any future improvements to the single-family house authorized by this permit, including but not limited to repair and maintenance identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources Section 30610( d) and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections l 3252(a)-(b ), shall require an amendment to Permit No. A-5-RPV-12-350 from the Commission or shall require an additional coastal development permit from the Commission or from t he City of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless the Executive Director determines that no coastal development permit or amendment is required. 6 . Deed Restriction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval documentation demonstrating that the landowners have executed and recorded against the parcel(s) governed by this permit a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director: (1) indicating that, pursuant to this permit, the California Coastal Commission has authorized development on the subject property, subject to terms and conditions that restrict the use and enjoyment of that property; and (2) imposing the Special Conditions of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property. The deed re striction shall include a legal description of the entire parcel or parcels governed by this permit. The deed restriction shall also indicate that, in the event of an extinguishment or termination of the deed restriction for any reason, the terms and conditions of this permit shall continue to restiict the use and enjoyment of the subject property so long as either this permit or the development it authorizes, or any pa11, modification, or amendment thereof, remains in existence on or with respect to the subject property. 17 Attachments 3-103 A-5-RPY-12 -350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial Is sue and De Novo VIII. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS FOR DE NOVO HEARING A . PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1. Project Location. The project location is hereby incorporated by reference from Section IV.A.1 of the Subs tantial Issue portion of thi s staff report beginning on page 8 . 2 . Project Description. For the de nova hearing, the applicants have revised the proposed project. As revised, the proposed project consists of construction of a new, 10,382 sq. ft ., two story single family residence with a maximum ridgeline elevation of 272.50'. A circular driveway is proposed, leading to an attached 4 space 977 sq . ft. garage . Propos ed grading includes 3,884 cu . yds . of cut, and 96 cu . yds. of fill. Proposed cut consists of l , 73 7 cu. yds . of cut beneath the residence, 679 cu . yds. of cut for the new driveway, 237 cu . yds. for the front yard, and 1,231 cu. yds. of cut for the pool and landscaped rear yard . Four retaining walls are proposed on the site , a 5' retaining wall near the driveway, a 3' wall on the north side of the residence, a 3 ' to 6' wall on the south side of the residence, and a 2 ' to 3' wall on the rear of the re s idence. Also propo sed is an infinity pool , spa, trellis , firepit, and landscaping. (Exhibit 3) The main differences between the res idence approved by the City, and the currently proposed residence include : 1) lowering the finished floor elevation of the residence by approximately 3.5 feet through additional grading; 2) lowering the finished floor elevation by moving the residence towards the rear of the sloping lot; and 3) reductions in the heights of the roof and chimneys by about 2.5 feet. The subject site doe s not contain sensitive habitat, and the applicants have submitted a geologic report from NorCal Engineering dated June 5, 2012 stating that the site is stable B. VISUAL RESOURCES The City's certified LCP identifies the location of specific views and view corridors that shall be protected from Palos Verdes Drive (PY Drive). The certified LCP requires that development not encroach into those specific view corridors. The subject site is not located within one of the sp ecific view corridors, which are the primary views identified for protection in the LCP . However, the LCP still requires that views in areas outside of the specific view corridors , such as the subject site, maintain the visual connection between PV Drive and the ocean . The relev ant LCP policies are li sted below. 18 Attachments 3-104 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Su bst ant ial Is s ue and De Novo The Subregion Element of the City's certified Land Us e Plan state s in Poli cy 8 of Subregion 1 : R equire proposed developm e 111s 0 11 lands affected hy view co rridors to m aintain th e resources. The Corridors Element of the City's certified La nd Use Plan sta t es: A large portion of the Palos Verdes D ri ve West I South I 251h Street Corridor has vis ual aspects w hich qual(fy as views. Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qualifY here and a majority of the land on the offshore s ide.falls within th e foreground of som e portion of th e Drive which is a viewing s tation . ..... 28 tw*al HCliona ......... ~ ---------~ To protect this vis ual relations hip betvveen th e Drive and ocean in th ose areas which are not part of an identified vista co rridor, no buildings should project into a zone measured 2' down-arc from horizontal a s m easured along the s hortest distan ce between th e viewing s tation and th e coa s tline. The Urban Environment Element of the C ity 's certified Land Use Plan states, in relevant part: The.following are g uide lin es and should b e considered in structure design : -S tructures s hould conform, in height and site p la ceme nt, to th e requirem ents of th e visual corridors d esign guidelines, in addition to those set by the City's Development Code. The Urban Environme nt E lement of the City's ce11ified Land Use Plan stat es, in rel evant part: -Pla nt mate rials should h e chosen which wi ll no t obstruct p ub li c or private views. 19 Attachments 3-105 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Staff Rep ort: Substantial Issue and De Novo As stated above, the City's certified Land Use Plan identifies the location and width of certain specific views from PV Drive, and requires that development not encroach into those views. The subject si te is not lo ca ted within one of the se specific view conidors, which are th e primary views identified for protection in the LCP . However, the LCP still requires that views in areas outside of the specific view corridors, such as the subject site, maintain the visual connection between PV Drive and the ocean by providing that no buildings should encroach into a 2 degree down arc view. Notably, this LCP policy includes "s hould'' and not "shair' in the view protection language, mandating a reasonable effort to avoid this view zone, but not an absolute requirement to avoid it at all costs-this criteria is simply one to consider when an applicant seeks to achieve consistency with the policy goal in the Corridors Element of the City's LUP of protecting the "visual relationship between the Drive and ocean. ". While every effort should always be made to avoid encroachment of a building into the 2 degree down arc zone, there may be site specific factors that preclude complete avoidance of the encroachment into the 2 degree down arc zone. Here, even after substantial revisions to the proposed design to maintain the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive and the ocean, the proposed residence would encroach into the 2 degree down arc zone because the site is subject to the following site- specific circumstances: a) the applicant has submitted a letter from NorCal Engineering, stat ing that bedrock is located just below existing grade, which would make any further redu ct ion in finished grade elevation very difficult , b) the lot to the north of the site is restrict ed as open space, and will continue to provide significant ocean views from PV Drive, c) on each of the three main paths for the public traveling through this area, ocean views would be maintained. As explained in further detail below, the proposed project would, nonetheless , achieve the stated purpose of the Corridors Element of the City's certified Land Use Plan by protecting the "visual relationship between the Drive and ocean." Therefore, as conditioned, th e proposed project is consistent with the intent of the view protection poli cies of the LCP. View Analysis There are three main viewpoints for public views in the vicinity of the subject site: I) th e northbound lane of PV Drive (approximate elevation of 272.5); 2) the southbound lane of PV Drive (approximate elevation of 268); and 3) the public trail located between the southbound lane of PV Drive and the project site (approximate elevation of 268). The majority of the public will be traveling through the area by car on either the north or southbound lanes of PV Drive. From a car traveling on northbound PV Drive, the residence would be partially obscured by vegetation on adjacent lots and the small berm and vegetation located in the landscaped median. The elevation of the northbound road, at 272.5, is the same height as the top of the proposed structure . A viewer trav eling in a vehicle has an eye height of between 3.5 and 4.5 feet from the ground 1 . Therefore a viewer in the northbound lane has a view elevation located 3.5 -4.5 feet above the re sidence. From this perspective , 1 S ivak, M ., et. al. 1996. The Locations Of Headlamps And Driver Eye Positions In Vehicles Sold In The U.S.A. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Insti tute. 20 Attachments 3-106 A~S -RPV-12-350 (Khos la) Substantial Issue and De Novo the viewer will be abl e to see both th e horizon line and a small amount of the ocean over the roof of th e proposed resi den ce. When traveling southbound by v ehi cle or foot , both a) the curved shape of PV Drive, and b) the adjacent area to the north of the resid ence, which is restricted as open space, alter how the viewer perceives the impact of the proposed resi den ce on the scenic view. When traveling to wards the residence from the notih, there is a wide open area which is located straight ah ead of the viewer when going through the curve. When vi ewing the propo sed residence, most of the public's view will be of th e si de of the residence, in a portion of the viewshed which is already blocked b y the existing residence on th e adjacent lot and vegetati on located to the south of the site. Clear ocean views are avai lable t o the right of this area of currently blocked view, across the lot to the n orth of the site which is restricted as open spa.c e. Only when approaching within about 150 feet of the residence would the proposed . re8idence begin to significantly impact the ability of the viewer to see th e ocean . Exhibit 5 shows a seri es of photographs taken from the public trail traveling to the south. When in front of the proposed residence on the southbound lane of PV Drive, views over the proposed structure will be impacted. Those traveling by car on southbound PV Drive w ould have a viewing elevation of 271.5 to 272.5 . Fo r a viewer in a car in the southbound lane of PV Drive, the top of the proposed residence would be located between 0 -1 feet above the viewer, thus blocking the view of the hori zo n line and ocean. When viewed by a pedestrian or cyclist from the public trail inland of the proposed residence, a blue water view of the ocean will be maintained over the proposed residence. A person with a height between 5 and 6 feet would hav e a viewing elevation of around 4. 7 and 5.7 feet above the trail-an elevation between 272 .7 to 273.7 feet. The residence has a maximum elevation of272.5 -thus this viewer would be able to see the horizon line, and some amount of an ocean view over the top of the residence . Furthermore, the applicants have agreed that, as viewed from the public trail , the final proj ect would be: a) below the horizon line, and b) would be no higher than the ridgeline elevation as shown by the story poles on Exhibit 4 to the staff r eport. Therefore, the applican ts have proposed a design that will preserve blue water views over the proposed residence . Conclusion Although the propos ed project would result in development which a) encroaches into the 2 degree down -arc zone, and b) would have some impact to scenic views from some vantage points, the project would not result in a significant adve rs e impact to views. Views from PV Drive to the ocean would be maintained after construction of the project from each of the public's viewpoints -with views to the right of the residence unaffected on the southbound lane, and views over the proposed structure maintained on the northbound lane and on the adjacent public trail. Therefore, after consideration of the site specific circumstances, and if conditioned to ensure the protection of these views, the proposed residence would maintain the visual connection between PV Drive and the 21 Attachments 3-107 A-5-RPV-I 2-350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial Is sue and De Novo ocean, and would therefore be consistent with the view protection policies of the City's LCP. The consistency of the proposed project with the C ity's LCP hing es on the ability of the project to provide these blue-water views . Therefore, the Commission imposes Three Special Conditions. Special Condition I requires th e submission of final project plans, and requires that, as viewed from the public trail , the final maximum elevation of the residence not exceed a) the hori zo n line , or b) extend higher into the ocean view than as indicated in Exhibit 4 to the staff report. Furthermore, Special Condition 1 requires the applicant to submit photographs during and at the end of construction to ensure that the finished residence i s consistent with this requirement. Special Condition 2 require s the applicant to submit final landscaping and fencing plans which ensures that no landscaping, fencing, or other accessory improvements will be constructed which result in impacts to scenic views over the site. Finally, Special Condition 3 states t hat future development on the site, such as additions to the existing residence, construction of accessory structures, or any other development which has the potential to result in impacts to scenic views from PV Drive shall require a Coastal Development Permit or Amendment to Permit from the Commission or the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment or new permit is required . As conditioned, the proposed project would protect views from PV Drive to the ocean, and would therefore be consistent with the visual protection policies of the City's certified Land Use Plan. C. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/ MARINE RESOURCES The City's certified LCP sets forth policies that address erosion control and landscaping. Policy 15 of the Natural Environment Element of the Cit y's certified Land Use Plan states: Provide mitigating measures where possible to control swface nmo.ff that might be degrading to the natural environment. Policy 2 of the Subregion I portion of the City 's certified Land Use Plan states: Encourage new developments to incorporate into their landscapi ng plan native plant materials, where such materials are.fire retardant, beneficial to migrat01y and resident bird species. 22 Attachments 3-108 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo The Urban Environment Element of the City's certified Land Use Plan states , in relevant pa11: The Following are g uidelines and should be conside red in the use <!f la11dscapel hardscape materials in private d e,·e /opments within th e Coastal Area: -The use of plant materials and planting d es igns which reflect th e natural coastal sage scrub character of the peninsula, and the southern California coastline in general, is encouraged for open and common areas within developments rather than the use of extensive decorative materials and plans requiring extens ive maintenance/watering and which are in comrast with !ip ec iesl materials in remaining natural vege tation areas of the City. -The use of plant materials within individual properties is subject to the guidelines for plant materials in common areas (use of natural/native materials) and the recommended Plant List in the Appendix, and s hould stress the use of low maintenance, low water-requirements materials, appropriate functional use (windbreaks, screens), as we ll as decorative use, recommendations are also included. The City 's certified Land Use Plan requires that new development incorporate features to a) control surface runoff which could be degrading to the environment, and b) incorporate into their landscaping plans species which reduce the need for irrigation and reflect the character of the Peninsula. Therefore, the Corrunission imposes Special Condition 2, requiring the applicant to submit final landscaping plans which consist of drought- tolerant, non-invasive species, and include species representative of the Peninsula, and Special Condition 3, requiring the submission of a final drainage plan which directs runoff to maintain site permeability, avoid directly connected impervious area and/or retain, infiltrate, or filter runoff from rooftops, driveways and other hardscape areas on site, where feasible. The proposed development has a potential for a di scharge of polluted runoff from the project site into coastal waters . The development, as proposed and as conditioned, incorporates design features to minimize the effect of construction and post construction activities on the marine environment. These des ign features include, but are not limited to, the appropriate management of equipment and construction material s, reducing runoff through the use of permeable surfaces, the use of non-invasive drought tolerant vegetation to reduce and treat the runoff discharged from the site, and for the use of post construction best management practices to minimize the project 's adverse impact on coastal waters . Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed development, as conditioned, conforms with the N atural Envirorunent and Development Guidelines policies of the City 's certified Land Use Plan. 23 Attachments 3-109 A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khos la) St aff Report: Substantial Is sue and De Novo D. DEED RESTRICTION To ensure that any prospective future owners of the property are made aware of th e applicability of the conditions of thi s pennit, the Commission imposes an additional condition requiring that the property owners record a deed restriction against the property, referencing all of the above Special Conditions of this permit and imposing them as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property. Thus, as conditioned, this permit ensures that any prospective future owner will receive actual notice of the restrictions and/or obligations imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land in connection with the authorized development. E. PUBLIC ACCESS AND R ECREATION Coastal Act Section 30210 states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution . maximum access , which shall be conspicuously posted, and recr eational opportunities shall be provided for all th e people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights. rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas.from overuse. Coastal Act Section 302 11 states : D e velopment shall not interfere with the public 's right of a ccess to the sea wh ere acquired through use or l eg islative authorization , including, but not limited to, th e use of dry sand and rocf...)' coastal beaches to the first line of te rres trial vegetation. Coastal Act Section 302 13 states : Lowe r cost visitor and recreational facilitie s shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible. provided. Developments providing p ublic recreational opportunities are preferred. Coastal Act Section 3022 1 states: De ve lopment shall not interfere with the public's right of a cc ess to the sea wh ere acquired through us e or legislative authorization , including, but not limite d to. th e us e of d1y sand and rocky coastal beaches to th e first lin e of terres trial vegetation. Coastal Act Section 30222 states: 771 e us e of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational fa c ilities desig ned to enhance public opportunities for coas tal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commerc ial development. but not over ag ric ulture or coastal-dependelll i11dust1 y . Coastal Act Section 30223 states: Upland areas necess my to support coa s tal r ecreational us es shall be res erved f or such uses, wh ere .feas ible. 24 Attachments 3-110 Coastal Act Section 30252 s tate s: A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla) Substantial Issue and De Novo Th e loca tio11 a11d amount of n ew de1 •elopment s hould mainta in and e nhance public access to the coast by ( 1) fa cilitating the provision or extens io11 of transit service, (2) pro1 ·iding c ommercia l.facilities within or adjoining residential d evelopme nt or in other areas that will minimize th e us e of coastal access roads , (3) providing nonautomob ile circulation w ithin th e development, (4) providing adequate parking.facilities or providing substitute means of s erving th e developmen t w ith public transportation, (5) assuring the potential fo r public transit for high intensity uses such as hig h-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that th e recreational needs of new r esidents will not overload n earby coastal recr ea tio11 areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acq uisition and development plans with the provision of onsite r ec reational.facilities to serve the new dev elopm ent. The project site is an inland lot which does not provide public access to or along th e shoreline . The proposed deve lopment will not affect the public 's abili t y to utili ze the public trai l located landw ard of the residence. The subject site is not an oceanfront lot. The project site is located about 600 feet inland of the top of a coastal bluff, and i s locate d landward of the residences lo cated along Marguerite Drive, which is the clo sest street to the edge of the bluff. The proposed development will not affect the public 's ability to gain acces s to , and/or to make use of, the coast and nearby recreational facili ti es. There fore, as propo se d the dev elopment conforms with Sections 3 0210 through 30214, Sections 30220 through 3 02 24, and 3 0252 of the Coastal Act. F. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL Q UALITY ACT (CEQA) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the lead agency responsible for certifying that the proposed project is in conformance wi th the California Environmentally Quality Act (CEQA). On September 25, 2012 , the City determined that in accordance with CEQA , the proj ect is Exempt from Provi sions of CEQA b ecau se the project would not have an adverse effect on the environment. Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulati ons requires Commission approval of coastal development permit applications to b e supported by a finding showing the appli cation, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable r equirements of the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All adverse impacts have been minimiz ed by the recommended c onditions of approval and th ere are no fea sible alternatives or additional feasible mitigation meas ures availabl e which would substantially Jessen any significant adverse impact whi ch the activity may ha ve on the environment. Therefore, the Commission find s that the proposed project can b e found co nsistent with th e requirem e nt s of the Coastal Act t o conform to CEQA. 25 Attachments 3-111 A-5-RPV-l 2-350 (Khosla) Staff Report: Substantial Issue and De Novo Appendix A -Substantive File Documents: -City of Rancho Palos Verdes Certified Lo cal Coastal Program -Appeal by Commissioners Brian Brennan and Mary Shallenberger, Chair -City Pennit Record for local Coastal Development Permit 2012-00141 -Local Coastal Development Permit 2012-00141 -The Locations Of Headlamps And Driver Eye Positions In Vehicles Sold In The U.S.A. The Univers it y of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Sivak, M ., et. al. 1996 . 26 Attachments 3-112 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G . BROWN JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90602-4302 (562) 590-5071 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REC EIVE a South Coast Region DEC 2 6 2012 SECTION I. Appellant(s) CALIFORNI A COASTAL COMMISSION Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s): Coastal Commissioners : Brian Brennan & Mary Shallenberger, Chai r 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed NOTE: 1. Name of local/port government: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 . Brief description of development being appealed : Construction of a new, 10,382 square foot. two-story residence w ith a 1 .027 square foot garage, which lies in the City's Coastal Specific Plan district. In addition. this approval allows 2, 988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill. and four {4) associated retaining walls . 3. Development's location (street address , assessor's parcel no., cross street , etc.): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County 4 . Description of decision being appealed : a . Approval; no special conditions : _________ _ b. Approval w ith special conditions:-'X'--"X~-------- c . Denial : -------------~----- For jurisdictions with a total LCP , denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable . TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION: APPEAL NO : DATE FILED : DISTRICT: A-5-R PY-/2-35D December 26, 2012 South Coast COASTAL COMMISSIO N EXHIBIT #_-_.1'i...-~­ PAGE I OF 7 Attachments 3-113 5. Decision being appealed was made by {check one): a . Planning Director/Zoning Administrator: ____ _ b . City Council/Board of Supervisors : ______ _ c. Planning Commission :_X _________ _ d . Other: ________________ _ 6. Date of local government's decision :-.::.:9/c.=2~5'-/1:..::2=------- 7 . Local government's file number: ZON2012-00141 SECTION Ill. Identification of Other Interested Persons Give the names and addresses of the following parties. {Use additional paper as necessary.) 1. Name and mailing address of permit applicant: Mr. & Mrs . Khosla 2 . Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s). Include other parties which you know to be interested and should receive notice of this appeal. a . Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association 60 Laurel Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 b. Stiassni Family 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 c. Marcel and Irmgard Bond 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 d. Marcos Ehab 7416 Via Lorado Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page : 2 COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT#~-'.....__. PAGE 1 OF 1 Attachments 3-114 e. Jason Sikola 7369 Berry Hill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 f. Lenee Bilski 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 Page : 3 COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT# __ , __ PAGE 1 OF ., Attachments 3-115 a . SEC T ION IV.Reasons Supporting This Appeal Note: Appeals of local government Coastal Permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section, which continues on the next page . Please state briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan , or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing . (Use additional paper as necessary .) The proposed project raises an issue as to consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified LCP . Although the LCP requires the protection of ocean views from Palos Verdes Drive; the proposed project has a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available across the vacant 1-acre project site . The project site, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, is located in Subregion 1 as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan . Policy No . 8 of Subregion 1 states, "Require proposed developments on lands affected by view corridors to maintain the resources". According to the City, the project site is not identified as being within a specific visual corridor. Nevertheless, the City acknowledges that the Coastal Specific Plan also protects views of the ocean across sites that are not within a designated visual corridor. Specifically , the Plan states: A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West/South/25th Street Corridor has visual aspects which qualify as views . Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qualify here ... To protect this visual relationship between the Drive and ocean in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, no buildings should project into a zone measured 2' down-arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline . (Page C-11-C-12 , Corridors Element, Coastal Specific Plan) According to the City's analysis, this policy would require that the ridgeline of the proposed residence be limited to an elevation of 268 .0 as measured from Palos Verdes Drive West, the viewing station,. However, the City approved the proposed single family residence with a height exceeding this height limit (by 8. 73') thereby allowing the structure to project into the existing ocean view. The findings state that the project as approved is however consistent with the visual resources protection provisions of the LUP and that the project as sited and designed is the best alternative for the construction of a new home on the downslope lot. The rationale for exceeding the height limit included : (a) the Development Code allows a house W~ASTMirooMMISStON of 16 ' (279' elevation); (b) the applicant has proposed a residence with a height that is less than the maximum height (276.73' elevation); (c) the applicant is proposing a large EXHIBIT #_._a.l __ _ Page: 4 PAGE q OF ' Attachments 3-116 front yard setback; and (d) the applicant has proposed to grade the site to provide a single story fac;ade from Palos Verdes Drive. However, a review of the City's conditions of approval indicates that the City did not require the increased front yard setback. While the local approval requires a maximum building height and a maximum square footage of the home and garage and requires certification by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer (Conditions 20 and 21), Condition 13 requires the standard 20' setback . Additionally, Condition 14 references the 20-foot front-yard setback. The findings state that additional grading to further lower the height of the structure is infeasible, requiring over 3,000 cubic yards of additional grading. However, the findings do not explain why this amount of additional grading would be necessary to remove the projection of the structure into in the ocean views especially given that the project site is a large lot (1 acre) and is described as "gently sloping". The approved project includes 3,206 cubic yards of grading (2,988 cy cut and 218 cy fill) which includes 1,044 cy of grading for a swimming pool , spa, and landscaped yard area in the rear yard and a level courtyard in the front yard . Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading, only 1,281 cy is for the home and an additional 633cy is for a circular driveway in the front yard area. Although the local approval included a brief discussion of additional grading to further lower the height of the structure, this alternative was dismissed as being infeasible. The local approval did not consider other feasible alternatives that could result in a project that is consistent with the visual resources protection policies of the certified Plan . The project site is a large vacant lot that slopes away from the frontage road . The proposed 10,382 sq . ft. home with a 1,027 sq . ft. garage (total size 11,409 sq . ft.) is larger than the average of the 20 closet homes in the area. Only 1 other home in the area is larger. Perhaps a smaller home would have less visual impact. The proposed home could also be sited further downslope or located elsewhere on the 1-acre site, thereby reducing the visual impact. These alternatives were not explored . As approved, the proposed project projects into the view corridor and is therefore inconsistent with the visual protection policies of the certified LCP . The project also has a s ignificant adverse impact on existing public views to the ocean available from Palos Verdes Drive West and sets precedence for future development on the adjacent and nearby lots . COASTAL COMMISSION Page: 5 EXHIBIT#_--./ __ _ PAGE f9 OF 7 Attachments 3-117 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 4) SECTION V. Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge. v'~ -~ . ~~ Date : ) Note: lf signed by agent, appe llant(s) must also Section VI. I/We hereby authorize Agent Authol'ization to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal. Date: Signature of Appellant (s) COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT#-:---'-- PAGE C OF 7 Attachments 3-118 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF L OCAL GOVERNMENT Page 3 State briefl y your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing . (Use additional paper as necessary .) Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit additionaJ information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request . SECTION V. Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge. Signed: ¥,41£~ Appell~t or Ag Date: ;e/E.IP /;e_ /I Agent Authorization: J designate the above identified person(s) to act as my agent in all matters pertaining to this appeal. Date: COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT#_,._.( __ _ (Documcnl2} PAGE 7 OF 7 Attachments 3-119 > COASTAL COMMISSIOJt EXHIBIT # __ 2. __ _ PAGE I OF I Attachments 3-120 ~H ~ L ~ u e :::sw ' ~ " UJ z [~ ¥ ~ ~: tl ? 1' ~ -=:(:' :Ui ~. z P. ~ ~ r< e J j C/)w ~l)S ~7-, ? ; ;; o o ·~' I ~~~~ -.J c:::> [ ~ ~ ~£ <~<1<1<< .. j 00 Q. E--c ,; ~ L ~a:'# ~5 ·~ ... . ·. ~-V \,,.. -, .. I / -1 ---, .. 1..::4Y / I ;'.Vi --=i -" . - .--Attachments 3-121 !O ;C a B ..: " n :I I I i i I I ~. g "' ~ a: i c " ~ c v. ~ ~ ~ :;, c ~ t g ~ ~ c c c ' ~ c ; ,_ ,_ ' ~-) ~ ~ ~.3 ..----;i,.I I I <-'A 11 c ~ § -t r--- •: --~ -----........__ -+--~ ---- '<:::<«J< z < _, Q. u. 0 ·0 ' ct -'*!. ----- Exhibit 3 Page 2 of 3 [~) Attachments 3-122 l !.;: "' a I 1 ----->\~ :;;-. . <j<J<J<< VJ z 0 ~ ·~ l w ~-:: -~ ;;;-.p.-~--# "~·-.P~ I'~ ' I I I r ' .. ~ "( t' I , 1 f,;.V I r I ~ 11 ~!.I .. ~ i', I ~--~-·-~~ >--:;."7£~ •~1"-~.o•., ·•~,,.. ........ ~.,..I ~ Exhibit 3 Page 3 of 3 .~ 1~: Attachments 3-123 Note : For co lo r photographs , p l ease see Staff Report at: www.coasta l.ca .gov/mtgcurr Exhibit 4 Page 1of1 Attachments 3-124 Attachments 3-125 , Exhibit 5 Page 2 of 4 Attachments 3-126 Attachments 3-127 Exhibit 5 Page 4 of 4 Attachments 3-128 Bob N elson also email: 'joh n.de/arroz@coastal.ca.g ov ' 6612 Channelview C ourt Rancho Palos V erdes, C A 90275 John Del Arroz California Coastal Commiss ion South C oast Area Office 2 00 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Nov ember 14, 2013 R~CEIVED So ;;,h Coo st Reg ion NOV 1 8 2013 \A f(FORNIA C .:::.~s ,,..,L COMMISSION Ref : P ermit#: A-5-RPV-1 2-350 (3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) Chairman, Coastal Commiss ion, Appeal Thought: RPV P lanning Commission and N ext Door Neighbor Appr oved; Most Objectors L ive Miles Away! John, Jn accord w ith Rancho Palos Verdes Rules and Procedures for Commissions and Commillees, this Is writte n as a private cltir.en, not as a member of our Planning Commission. Summary: Appealed is Rancho Palos Verdes' Planning Commission's 6 in favor, l against, decision of September 11, 2012 regarding a single family residence at this address, plans the next-door neighbor publicly welcomes. On Sept. 11th two residents spoke against the project, one living up hill. looking down, the other lives some distance away. The argument was size and bulk. However, this is a neighborhood of brge homes and t he Commission found for neighborhood compatibility. I urge our Coasllll Commission to deny DllT rapected Cltainnan 's appeal, thereby letting this homeowner bulld the plans before you. Background: Rancho Palos V enies has a distinguished record of environmentalism. In this case that is not the issue. The issue is bulk and mass and views . In this block, all homes seaside of Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW) are brge, one neighbor has a vineyard in their front yard! All block ocean views from the east bound lane of PVDW. Lower than the neighbors, this home would only partially block the view. Next door there is a substantial lot, undevelo pable parkland, with clear views of the ocean. I would expect additional letters against this project. A revised presentation of these plans, now null and void, was similarly approved 5-2 and many who testified against live some 3-4 miles away in Sea V iew, opposite Trump National. As such they have littJe skin in this game but I respect their becoming involved and realize, somehow, they always manage to testify their sky is falling! Remember, 42,000 live in RPV and _ oppose. To deny this homeowner the ability to build a neighborhood compa tible home. confirmed by his Planning Com.mission 6-1 on September 11, 2012, I would hope is not accepted by the Coastal Commission as a whole. Thank you for this opportunity. Sin1!:dJ~ Bob~elson COASTAL COMMISS ION cc: email: lez am@rpv.com (Lez a Mikha i l, Associate Planner, RPV Community D evelopment D eJ EXHIBI T # __ e __ _ PAGE _1,J .. OF £ Attachments 3-129 Del Arroz, John@Coastal From: Sent: To: Cc : Subject: ezstevens@cox.net Wednesday, October 09 , 2013 8:30 PM Del Arrez, John@Co astal Ai nsworth, John@Coastal; Ai nsworth, John@ Coasta l; Posner, Chuck@Coastal; msha lle nberger@coastal.gov; bbrennan@coas ta l.ca.gov RE : Commiss ion Appeal No. A-S-RPV-12-35 0 Su~t: Commission Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Dear California Coastal Commission , I wish to appeal the Construction of the home at 3344 PV Dr. West Rancho Palos Verdes. If this is approved as submitted by the owners representative the finished product will in terfe re with the Publics Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to enj oy. I suggest that this owner lower the building pad a little more so as not to impair the Coastal View. He is bui lding a 10,000 sq foot house a great expense so at a minimal additional expense he would be able to save the view. I do not think this is asking for too much. I trust you will give this some great consideration. The Planning Commission of Ranch o Palos Verdes has rushed approval of this project. PS: At the present time there is a nice 4 to 5 foot wrought iron fence along the top of the property alongside PV Dr. W pennitting a nice unobstructed v iew of the Coastal corridor. Sadly in a few years the landscaper will plant a hedge on both si des just like along the Trump Gol f Course & numerous other projects along Palos Verde Dr. South & West blocking the v iew that was to be preserved for future generations to enjoy. We all moved to this magical area called the Peninsula for the air, the closeness to the ocean , the quality of life , and yes , most of all for its magnificent Open Coastal view Corr idor -city lights at night, and the ocean, Catalina, Santa Barbara Channel Islands and the Queen 's Necklace with the snow-capped mountain ranges (in the winter anyway). V iew owners paid in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase a home with a view, and P.roperty values were priced accordingly . We all benefit monetari ly fronc'GAltAt'~ a view property or not. It was written in by builders many years ago into CC&R's that views weatfff!fl'•ed a ch adjacent lot was j ust a little higher than its neighbor, so that view acce~~ not ly0 ~mfmr property, but the view extended across your neighbor's property a s wetr:' When funds were available to the less fortunate among us , for so lar hot water collectors, they were prov ide d with the proviso by way of signed deed restrictions , recorded with t he coun t y, that the reqe i v~r swore an oath, that they would not block the i r neighbors' views with trees, shrubs or anything elselffiat would interfere with an adjacent (or below) view owner's righ t to his view. Attachments 3-130 Sadly , th is hasn 't been honored by spiteful neighbors, hasn 't been uphe ld a nd enforced by our cities or the California Coastal Commission, and the denied view owner has to pay. 1) to get a hearing with our cities (instead of the guilty tree planting neighbor), 2) has to pay for an arborist to trim the gu ilty tree , on a yearly basis at grea t expense to mai nta in a view, a nd if the neighbor is cooperative o r 3) has to resort to devious methods of tree pruning , cutting or just chopp i ng down foliage that was planted in the wrong place, and at a much smaller size by unknowing , uncaring, selfish people . Barbara Stevens 45 Year resident 32418 Conqueror Dr. Rancho PALOS Verdes CA,90275 From: ezstevens@cox .net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:39 PM To: 'John DelArroz' Cc: 'cposner@coastal.ca .gov'; 'Charles.Posner@coastal .ca .gov'; 'jainsworth@coastal.ca .gov'; 'John.Ainsworth@coastal .ca .gov' Subject: Commission Appea l No . A-5-RPV-12-350 COASTAL COMMllllON ( Subject: Commission Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 EXHIBIT# PAGE+ ";1Ji--OF--S::il!lllll9 Dear California Coastal Commission , I wish to appeal the Construction of the home at 3344 PV Dr. West Rancho Palos Verdes . If this is approved as submitted by the owners representative the finished product will interfere with the Publics Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to enjoy. The California Coastal Commission was set up to protect what was left of the Open Coastal . view Corridor for everyone to enjoy & for future generations to enjoy. In the 45 years that I have lived here in RPV I have seen the o pen view disappear. The City of RPV & the California Coastal Commission have no backup plan to enforce the ov ergrown vegetation from taking away the view. 2 Attachments 3-131 Everyone likes to see the trees & hedges grow but not at the expense of the Public's right to preserve this small area along the Coast in Perpetuity for future generations to enjoy . I have driven from San Diego to Santa Barbara & I would guess since the California Coastal Commission has been in existence since 1976 to preserve the Coast, we have lost over 50% of the open view. I suggest that a group of you get together & drive the Coast in a regular car not a bus or SUV & you will see how each little development that was permitted to build & agreed to protect the view has totally ignored their responsibility to protect the Public's view . We now have what I call a peek-a-boo view I strongly suggest that the California Coastal Commission address this issue immediately & with careful consideration for all involved in Rancho Palos Verdes & surrounding coastal areas. Thanking you in advance Edward Stevens 45 Year resident 32418 Conqueror Dr. Rancho PALOS Verdes CA ,90275 Please forward to Mary K. Shallenberger & to Brian Brennan I do not have their email address Below i s a copy of muy email to RPV Planning City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544 -5293 From : ezstevens@cox.net [ezstevens@cox.net] Sent : Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:51 AM To : PlanningCommission Cc: CC Subject: RE : P.C. Agenda Item# 3 -Public Hearing on 3344 PVDr . West- Subject: suggestion on public view issue Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT# ' F PAGE y OF Regarding your P.C. Agenda Item# 3 -Public Hearing on 3344 PVDr. We st- 3 Attachments 3-132 Why allow any intrusion into the public's view of the ocean from PV Drive West? I wish you would just have the Owner of 3344 PV Dr. West just grade lower to preserve the view for the public! The Public is slowly losing our Magnificent Ope n Coastal View Corridor every year to these type of buildings & this must be stopped. The next thing that happens is they agree to not let the trees get above 16 feet & then nobody polices the tree as it grows & no one trims it & there goes the view for future generations to enjoy. The builders also install a nice 2 foot wrought iron fence that leaves a nice open view & then they plant a hedge on both sides to eventually block the view or they plant larger trees on the down side that are allowed to grow out of control & there goes the view. This sort of disregard for the Public's right to protect the open view corridor fo r future generations to enjoy must be stopped. So please Help and put some real teeth into the future agreements to preserve what little view remains along our 7 mile City Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to enjoy. Edward Stevens 45 Year res ident 32418 Conqueror Dr . Rancho PALOS Verdes CA,90275 4 COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT# __ , __ _ S-OF r-PAGE Attachments 3-133 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMM ISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate , Suite 1000 Long Beach , CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 Th 20a ADDENDUM EDMUND G . BROWN , JR .. GOVERNOR December 5, 2013 Click here to go to original staff report TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: SOUTH COAST DISTRICT STAFF SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ITEM Th20A, APPEAL SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE I DE NOVO HEARING A-5 -R PV-12 -350 FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING OF December 12, 2013 Please find attached : 1) A presentation booklet by the applicant's representatives 2) Public comment letters , in support of, and in opposition to , the staff recommendation . 3) Ex-parte communication forms Attachments 3-134 Attachments 3-135 • 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, RPV Microsoft Corporation, 20 l 3 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 1 3 6 --oroose r 01 e c Construction of a two story single-family residence with attached garage, grading, and four associated retaining walls on a one-acre vacant lot within a residential neighborhood . '., ,, "· ~ --.-.......,.;~~1-t .. ..J-1 • Southbound .Palo~ Verdes Drive West ~ 1 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 1 3 7 +-u cu ·-0 ....-... Q) en ro -+.J c 0 !.... '+- +-' Q) Q) 1.... -+.J CJ) -c 0 -+.J ro > Q) w 1€ l o I Z i :<<<<< I :i 5 6 I • I II ' ' I I /"I ii f I, w j I '--I _ __.. __ .. ~ i -·;JJ-.. I f if;;: t~ -.:# :tZ c 0 +-' co > Q) w +-' CJ) co w Attachments 3-138 - .e I lssue s/Proiec s Re ~ SI -.:-Specific protection of views along Palos Verdes Drive West required ":" Many existing views blocked by development and/ or vegetation :-As originally approved, structure would obstruct views from Palos Verdes Drive West In response to appeal concerns, applicant incorporated following revisions: o Lowering finished floor elevation of re sidence through additional grading; o Lowering finished floor elevation by moving residence towards r ear of sloping lot; and o Reductions in heights of roof and chimneys. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 1 3 9 c 0 ·-+-u :::> -c Q) ,_ © ~ ~ c ..c -Q) 0) CJ) ·-c ~~~ c.. '+-ro Q) 0 > s-. 0 Q.) CJ) s-. Q.) ~5~ 0... EN II ~·X ~ o ro -I ~ E Cl) Attachments 3-140 ·- II c 0 +:i ro ::l E ·-CJ) ro ::l CJ) > Attachments 3-141 s ~~ ecommendation --------~ " ... if the project is modified to lower the height of the proposed residence, and conditioned to ensure that the views of the coast are protected, the project would conform with the visual protection policies of the City's certified Land Use Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission, after a public de novo hearing, approve the permit with special conditions that require the height of the proposed residence to be lowered in order to protect the public's view of the coast. The applicants agree with the staff recommendation." P. 2, CCC Staff Report A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 1 4 2 - o n c lu si o o Proiect revised to address appeal concerns and wil l not result in adverse impacts to public views from Palos Verdes Drive West. o Development consistent with scale and character of surrounding area. o Applicant in agreement with staff recommendation and requests the Commission approve the proiect as conditioned. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 1 4 3 John A . Schoenfeld 93 La ur e l D r i v e, Ra n c ho Pal os Ve r des, Californi a 9027 5 November 27, 2013 John Del Arro:z CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Re: Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla, Rancho Palos Verdes) Dear Mr. Del Arroz: I am writing to voice my support for the Kholsa's project. We have resided in Rancho Palos Verdes since 1983 and in the Lunada Pointe neighborhood (which adjoins the Kholsa's property at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) since 1991. Our home of 22-p/us years is only 600-to -700 feet from the Kholsa 's property. The Kholsa's proposed new home is wholly compatible with our neighborhood in size and massing . Claims alleging the Kholsa 's new home will substantially block views are false and misleading . In all fact, th e Kholsa's new home will be of lesser height than was the home that previously occupied the property. The Kholsa's new home as designed is a welcomed addition to our neighborhood and I support their project. Very truly yours, John A. Schoenfeld cc : (Leza Mikhail , Associate Planner, RPV Community Development Dept) Attachments 3-144 Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 John Del Arroz California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 December 1, 2013 Th20a Permit#: A-5-RPV-12-350 Bob Nelson Favor project, deny appeal DEC 0 2 2013 c 1· L'F C~~~·" Ref: Permit~: A-5-RPV-12-350 (3.34:4 Palos Verdes D~ve West) COASTAL 'coM/,:i :~S ION Chamnan, Coastal Corrumss1on, Appealed Project Brief: RPV Planning Commission Found for Neighborhood Compatibility, Next Door Neighbor Approves; Most Objectors Live Miles Away John, In accord with Rancho Palos Verdes Rules and Procedures for Commissions and Committees, this is writlln as a privat~ citizPI, not as a member of our Planning Commission. Summary: Appealed by Coastal Commission Chairman is Rancho Palos Verdes' Planning Commission's 6 in favor, 1 against, decision of September 11, 2012. I urge our Coastal Commission to deny our respecU!d Chairman's appeal, thereby l.etting this homeowner build the plans before you. Background: 1. On Sept. 11 two residents spoke against, one living up hill, Jooking down, the other living some distance away. The arguments were ocean views, project size and bulk. However, this is a neighborhood of large, beautiful homes, hence RPV's Planning Commission found for neighborhood compatibility and approved the project 6-1. 2. Speaking briefly to ocean view blocking, bulk and mass: The project's block has 6 lots, 4 with homes. The 1st lot is a two story that blocks ocean views (and has a vineyard as its front yard), next to it is another two story, then a large empty Jot that is a park, then this lot, then two one story homes that block ocean views. Eastward are very large homes, recently built, and below ocean views. However, within a mile eastward both the city and the US Coast Guard have Jong time view blocking foliage. So this one story home has local neighborhood compatibility (Planning Commission 6-1 ). 3. Rancho Palos Verdes has a distinguished record of environmentalism. In this case that is not the issue. Lower than neighbors, this home only partially blocks ocean views. 4. Expect further letters against this project. Most live 3-4 miles away in Sea View, opposite Trump National. I respect their becoming involved but realize, somehow, they always manage to testify to the effect their sky is falling! Remember, 42,000 live in RPV and how many oppose? Less than 1/20ttt of 1 %! We appreciate our Chairman's concern but to deny this homeowner the ability to build a neighborhood compatible home, confirmed by his Planning Commission 6-1 on September 11, 2012, I hope is not the decision of the Commission as a whole. Thank you for this opportunity. Sincere~;J~ Bob Nelson Attachments 3-145 SUNSHINE 6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5909 ~n:;Cf i'~r: .,~ 310-377-8761 South c· ~.:·Rr::;~ sunshinerpv@aol.com oc.,, .e910 :; November 29, 2013 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ATTN : JOHN DELARROZ 200 OCEANGATE, 1 oth Floor LONG BEACH , CA 90802-441 6 DEC 0 2 2013 RE: ITEM NO: Th20a, December 12, 2013 Agenda 20 a. Appeal No . A -5-RPV-1 2-350 (Khosla, Rancho Palos Verdes) Dear Commissioners, I support your Staff's position that there is a "substantial issue" which needs to be addressed . The proposed project, as approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, flies in the face of the goals of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan as well as revealing that local decision makers are manipulating the data in order to "interprer the not clear measuring points in favor of increased view obstruction . Please determine to hear this appeal. I do not support your Staff's recommendation on the "de novo" phase. The modi.tied proposal does not obstruct the view as badly as the original but it still would obstruct the view of the horizon from the California Coastal Trail and persons seated in a sedan height vehicle going southbound on Palos Verdes Drive West. Please hear the "de novo" phase, immediately, and find that no coastal development pennit should be issued for either proposal at this time. Should you have any authority at all, please direct the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to establish Civil Engineering level criteria so that future applicants can be informed of them prior to spending thousands of dollars on Architects and such. The two percent down arc is just a concept without clearly defined start points based on feet and inches above something like the mean high tide line. People who can pass the AICP test are not taught how to do this . That does not mean they should feel free to ignore them. I am crying "property owner abuse". People are willing to comply with Local Coastal Plans (LCP) when Staff discloses them in a timely fashion. This property owner has every right to have become "cranky". RPV should waive all future application fees but that is nothing compared with what these people have spent on designs based on the RPV Staffs lack of interest in the future of the California Coastal Zone. I am so embarrassed for my City. Most sincerely , Attachments 3-146 From: Diane Stone [mailto:dianestonehomes@qmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:24 AM To: John.DelArroz@coastal.ca.gov Cc: ezstevens . Subject: Palos Verdes views -Coastal Commission Hearing -3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Hello John, Palos Verdes needs to restore and preserve the area views. Many of the coastal areas are being bloc ked by overgrowth. The magnificent views that people see as they are driving, walking, and biking around the hill are part of the beauty and pleasure of Jiv ing in lhese areas. This includes many people who do not have views from their own homes, but still enjoy these stunning, ever-changing landscapes . Visitors also enjoy the gorgeous cloud formations , sunsets, sunrises, and ocean and hillside vistas. Many people stop at various points along the road to take photographs, to capture what they experience. This is also part of the tremendous value of our area and distinguishes Palos Verdes from other areas. I h ave lived in Palos Verdes for over 20 years, and lived in the Golden Cove area for 15 years . I am also a Realtor in the area. The ripple effect of the city's decisions is enormous . I look to you and others in city leadership positions to take action now. Sincerely, Diane Stone DIANE STONE SRES,CNE, GREEN,CDPE, CIAS , PV Specialist,IRES REALTOR® RE/MAX Estate Properties BRE #01823115 63 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 C e ll : (310) 796-6140 Attachments 3-147 f ~.Sc~:~~~~~·.?{(© Souih Coc:st Re~r -~n -E r· 3 2013 u l .· C/\LiFC-Rr~4:/\ Cc:.,~\S-!'.·~·.L C:2/v·\iv'iiSS I C~~·~ /)£ C. :2) ;). CJ /3 Agenda # Th20a, Permit #A-S-RPV-12-350 Edward Stevens opposes this project Subject: RE: Coasta l Commission Hearing# A -S-RPV-12-350 - Item # Th20a -3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Ranch Palos Verdes -Local Govt. Permit# 2012-00141 Dear Coastal Commissioners Brian Brennan & Mary Shallenberger, I oppose this project @ 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes. I and a lot of people in Rancho Palos Verdes are very upset with The Coastal Commission & the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that you are not protecting what little is left of our Open Coastal View Corridor for the Public & Mure generations to enjoy. I have lived here for over 45 years since 1968 & I have watched the open view slowly disappear right before my eyes. It is happening so slow that the public do not realize that the construction of new homes, the Trump Golf course, the Terranea Resort etc along PV DR. South & PV DR. West have turned our awesome Open View in to what I call A-Peek-A-Boo-View. Rancho Palos Verdes & The Coastal Commission needs to restore and preserve the area views. Many of the coastal view areas are being blocked by overgrowth & construction. The magnificent views that people see as they are driving, walking, and biking around the hill are part of the beauty and pleasure of living in these areas. This includes many people who do not have views from their own homes, but still enjoy these stunning, ever-changing landscapes. Attachments 3-148 ---------·· Visitors also enjoy the gorgeous cloud formations, sunsets, sunrises, and ocean and hillside vistas. Many people stop at various points along the road to take photographs, to capture what they experience. This is also part of the tremendous value of our area and distinguishes Palos Verdes from other areas. The City Of RPV & the Coastal Commission was formed to protect this wonderful Natural beauty of our Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to enjoy & the both of you have fallen short. There is no mechanism set up to follow thru with ordering the overgrown trees & shrubs to be removed by the home owners, the resorts or even the cities on public & private property • The Coastal Commission & RPV City must step up to the plate & protect what little is left & attempt to restore the Public's open Coastal View Corridor. I wish you & your staff would take a normal car ride not in an SUV along the coast from San Francisco to San Diego & you will see how much of the view has been lost to development such as the 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West project. This is very sad & I hope you & your staff will take a hard look at this terrible situation & you will enforce the existing rules or make new regulations. Mr . R IVlrs . t<J wsl<) can LOWER the i r 10,000 sq. ft. house so as not to block the view & plant trees & shrubs so as not to block the view. What is happening is the City requires the developer to install an open Wrought iron fence along PV DR S & PV DR West to preserve the view, then the owners proceed to plant a hedge & trees on their property on the other side of the fence & in a few years there goes the view with no mechanism to protest this terrible thing from happening. The ripple effect of the Coastal Commission's decisions is enormous. I look to you and others in leadership positions to take action now. Attachments 3-149 Thanking you in advance for you & your staff for looking into this Very important View issue. Edward Stevens 32418 Conqueror Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 Attachments 3-150 Del Arroz, John@Coastal From: Sent: To: Subject: Palos Verdes Drive West, jess ica <jessboop@cox.net> Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:17 PM Del Arroz, John@Coastal ; jessica Agenda Item TH20A. Application ASRPV -12-350, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Agenda Item No. TH20A , Application A5RPV-12-350, 3344 Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Coastal Commissioners, My name is Jessica Leeds, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and I would like to submit the following to the Coastal Commission regarding the subject shown above: The Coastal Specific Plan of Rancho Palos Verdes was written in December 1978 for the newly incorporated, as of September 1973, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the Coastal Act of 1976, as mandated . There are approximately 1, I 00 miles of California Coastline and out of that we are privileged to have approximately 7.5 miles of beautiful undulating, varying terrain coastline jutting out into the ocean within the jurisdiction of Ranch Palos Verdes . In development of the Coastal Specific Plan, there was a lot of thought and input into why we all need to protect our coast. All of those concerns and reasons are in the Coastal Specific Plan. In regards to this specific project and also other current and future coastal RPV projects, I feel we should always rely on the intent of the "Coastal Specific Plan" to protect the enjoyment of the public! So, as to this project, there is a concern about the impairment of views for the public from a pedestrian position on the walking trails, any public picnic sites, and viewpoints, plus from an automobile going past on Palos Verdes Drive (west, in this case). The RPV Coastal Specific Plan adopted Resolution No. 78-8, Section 4, 1. states that the EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect the impact on views. This potential significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avo ided as follows: "View corridors will be created with restrictions on the height of structures." Coastal Specific Plan, page C-9, Visual Corridors states in paragraph 2, states, "the greatest degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers; and are thus the function of "Palos Verdes Drive" as the primary visual corridor accessible to the greatest numbers of viewers with views of irreplaceable natural character and recognized regional significance." Continuing to: Page C-9, paragraph 3: Public Viewing Stations ... I. Continuous-viewed along the public corridor of Palos Verdes Drive, 2. Localized-As viewed from a specific site or turnout. Coastal Specific Plan, page C-10, Ve11ical Boundaries-.... A minimum 2 degree down-arc from Horizontal. In conclusion: I support the substantial issue, and I oppose the project as presented or re-presented as the project and alternate project do not follow the basics of the Coastal Specific Plan. It's important to keep in mind the basic intent of the CSP, that views are to be protected, for the public, now and in the future from the main corridors of Palos Verdes Drive. The rest of this is subject to interpretation; how tall a person is , the height of an automobile, etc . I am concerned Attachments 3-151 that if this were to be approved, it would set a precedent for other projects, big and small on the coast, which would then eliminate \Vhat little coastal views we now have left of our 7.5 mile coastline (RPV), plus the balance of our beautiful California Coast. I feel that the original intent of the Coastal Specific Plan has been lost as new people have been hired or appointed who are not totally familiar with the reasoning behind the Coastal Act. and the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. We need to protect our coastline and maintain the original plan of the Coastal Specific Plan and the mandated California Coastal Act. Please continue to protect our beautiful coast for now and for the benefit of those who will be here in the future . Thank you for your service. Jessica Leeds RPV Resident 310 377-9650 2 Attachments 3-152 Del Arroz, John@Coastal From: Sent: To: Subject: M ike and Louise < mandlinrpv@msn .com > Wednesda y, December 04 , 2013 7:16 PM Del Arroz , John@Coastal 33 44 PVDr. West view issue Dear California Coastal Commissioners. o,·e r 40 years ago the C it y of Rancho P alos Verdes was born . The main impetus for it s inco1voration was the desi re t o protect the coastl in e from vie\\ obstru ction and O\'er de\'elopment, not on ly for th e benefit of its citizen s but for all visitors and fu ture generations. Recently. we drove b) the applicant's flagged property and noticed th at indeed it would be an ocean v iew obstruct ion (we say ocean view as Catal ina is rarely seen). This letter is a p lea that the Coastal Commission d oes n ot in any way dilute the ocean view protection of Palos Verdes Drive West and South (a public roadway). As you may know a major developer owns a large section of coastal prope11y in RPV and has yet to finalize his pl ans . Please do not give him any l egal ammuni tion for more ocean view obstruct ion from our sceni c road and coastal trails in this process. Thank you in Cldvance for your consideration of this very impo11ant issue. Sincerely. Michael and Louise Shi pman 3948 Admirable Drive Rancho Palos Verdes. Ca 90275-602 8 Attachments 3-153 Del Arroz, John@Coastal From : Sent: To: Cc : Subject: Attachments: Dec . 4, 2013 Lenee Bilski <l eneebilski @hotmai l.com> Wednesday, December 04 , 2013 11:53 PM Del Arroz, John@Coastal Lenee Bilski CCC Appeal agenda item Th 20a A-5 -rpv -12-350 100_2459.J PG ; 100_2463 .J PG To California Coastal Commission ATIN : JOHN DEL ARROZ RE: ITEM NO : Th20a, December 12, 2013 Agenda 20 a. Appeal No . A-5-RPV-12 -350 (Khosla, Rancho Palos Verdes) Dear Coastal Commissioners, Th20a 12/12/2013 Lenee Bilski opposed to project I concur that there is Substantial Issue . I hope that you will honor the intent of the LCP and not approve either the original or the "de nova" request for a Coastal Development Permit at this time . Mistakes have been made and there is a lot of information miss ing . I am opposed to approval of the proposed revision because the public's view from Palos Verdes Dr . West would be blocked by the structure. The proposed revision projects more than four vertical feet into the view corridor. If approved, this project would have a significant adverse impact not only on existing public views of Santa Catalina Island and the ocean available from Palos Verdes Drive but would also set precedent for future development on the adjacent and nearby lots, and elsewhere in the State. You have the power to preserve and protect the public's views . If an applicant presented a project that projected 12 feet into the view and then revised it down to project 6 feet, which would still block the view, would you approve it just because the height had been lowered? If an applicant has the resources to hire a consultant who specializes in advocating for a Coastal Permit even though the proposed project would block the view, would the Commission favor the applicant, dismiss the public's comments, find the proposal cons is tent and approve such a project? I hope that you would honor the intent of the LCP and not approve such a project . No other appeals were filed because we were told this is in a non -appealable area! The notice from the city was incorrect for this parcel and for others nearby . Therefore, the public was deprived of the opportunity to appeal this and other projects to the Coastal Commission. Do two wrongs make a right? Or three? Mistakes have been made at the city level in the past, the Coastal Commission has missed or overlooked these mistakes, and proposals that obstruct the ocean view have Attachments 3-154 received approva l in the past without allowing the public to appeal to the Coastal Commission . But that 's no reason to continue to allow mistakes. Four feet projection into the view equals no blue water view and no vi ew of Catalina from PVDrive. Please do not condone or perpetuate past mistakes . In June 2000, the RPV staff wrote that the view in the southbound direction of Palo s Verdes Dr. West is not considered a protected view. (P .C. Res . #2000-15 for# 6 Marguerite Dr.) That proposed project was approved, and it was noticed as located in a non-appealab le portion of the coastal zone . So the public was deprived of correct information again. The RPV Coastal Specific Plan refers to PVDrive as a public viewing station (pg.C-9) and to the development controls needed to protect and enhance the identified corridors . (pg . C-10). The areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor are to be protected (pg . C-12) by measuring a 2-degree down-arc. Since the alternative "revised" project would be relocated farther away from the public right-of-way, the Rancho Palos Verdes Commissioners asked for the revised calculation of the 2-degree down-arc at the new location for this proposed project but those calculations had not been made. Therefore, we do not know what ridgeline elevation (at the new location) would comply with the 2-degree down-arc. However, the silhouette m akes it clear that the proposed height would block the view of Catalina Island and the ocean from Palos Verdes Dr. West. see photos taken from a height of app . four ft . above the elevation of the coastal tra i l ~ view of silhouette erected at 3344 Palos Verdes Dr. West, RPV 12/02/2013 ~ view through wrought iron fence at 3344 Palo s Verdes Dr. West, RPV 12/02/2013 I don't see anything in the CCC appeal that directs the owner to "minimize" the view obstruction, but the current staff report recommends approval of this alternative even though it would be view-obstructing, The view impact concerns raised by the CA Coastal Commission Appeal have not been resolved . Why not ask the applicant to come back with a project that will not block any Catalina & ocean view like the nearby projects in Ocearfront Estates? Doesn't the Coastal Act apply equally to all development along the coast whether subdivided lots or individual lots? The claim that further grading is infeasible is questionable as a previous project for this same site proposed excavating up to sixteen feet in depth and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. (pg. 11of15 RPV Var. No. 437, 10/27 /1998). The 2012 propose d plans included grading cut of 8'-10 1/2' in order to accommodate the residence. Of course, a smaller structure is also feasible I am very concerned because the view impact concerns raised by the CA Coastal Commission Appeal have not been resolved to the public's benefit. Although the Coastal Commission staff has not be en out to the site to see the revised silhouette, views of the water and Catalina Is la nd are what the Coastal staff is looking for in order for this project to be in compliance and consi st ent with the RPV Coastal Specific Plan . The support for the revision from the Coasta l staff was based on the drawn plans and the applicants statements, not on visual assessment. Coastal Program Analyst John DelArroz wrote: "After working with the applicant to address the view impacts raised by the appeal [by the CA Coastal Commissioners], the applicant has identified an alternative project plan (attached to this letter) that lowers the height of the proposed residence to offer views of the ocean from 2 Attachments 3-155 Palos Verdes Drive West." The fact is that the applicant's offer of views of the ocean is opinion, but it is not supported by facts . An ambiguous and questionable photo taken by the applicant to support his claim of a "horizon" view has been presented. I find nothing in the Commission Appeal about a view of just the horizon! Where did that term come from? In October 2013, from the trail path in front of the site, neither the City's planner, Leza Mikhail, nor RPV Planning Commissioner Tetreault, who visited the site, could even see the horizon line much less the ocean above the revised silhouette flagging. The Coastal Commission staff letter states that protecting the public's view of the ocean is the goal of the revision. For a previously approved project, RPV staff has stated: "the viewing (i.e . eye) level for motorists or pedestrians, from where the down -arc would be taken is approximately 3-feet higher that the street elevation." (staff report pg . 18 for #6 Marguerite Dr. P .C. Resolution 2000-16, Height Var. #898, Grading Permit #2150 Coastal Permit #160). Even a condition restricting the landscaping to 272' and 270' would exceed the staff's calculation of 268' and therefore would not preserve the view but block it. I am a SO-year resident of Palos Verdes and find that little by little our public views of the ocean, for one reason or another, are being obscured by development and foliage even though the City of RPV was incorporated 40 years ago to prevent over-development of the coastline and since 1978 the City has had a certified Local Coastal Plan that should protect the views for the public. Nearby residences have been limited to ridge lines no higher than the elevation of the road to maintain the public's view. The revised proposal is at 272 feet elevation for the full width of the structure. That is five feet higher than the elevation of their roadside frontage property line. Do not set a bad precedent here. Please deny both the original and the de novo "revised" proposal offered as an alternative to the original. Let's get all the facts in a timely manner. RPV Staff should be urged by the Coastal Commission to do due diligence during the pre-application phase for a coastal development permit. Thank you for your service! Sincerely, Lenee Bilski 4255 Palos Verdes Dr . South Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275 3 Attachments 3-156 Attachments 3-157 D I SC L OSURE OF E X PARTE COMMUNICATI ONS Date and time of receipt of co m mu n ication: December 3. 201 3 at I :00 pm Location of communication: Phone Type of communication: Teleconference Person(s) in attendance at time of communication: Susa n McCabe. Anne Blemker Person(s) receiving communication: Carole Groom Description of project: Th20a -Appeal No. A -5-RPY-12-350 (Khosla, 3 344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes) Description of communication: Representatives of applicants provided background of project and indicated they have reduced the height of the project since its appeal to the Coastal Commission in order to protect public views . They are in support of staffs recommendation and conditions of approval. Date: ~<-~ 'l "1? Signature of Commissioner: ____ i_('>,,_N_1 c..._' _?...._•\..i_o_1...--___________ _ Attachments 3-158 Item T b 20a DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Name or description of project: Ap peal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 (Khosla, Rancho Palo s Verdes) Appeal by Commissioners Shallenberger & Brennan of decision by City of Ranc ho Palos Verdes to grant permit with conditi ons to Mr. and Mrs. Khosla for constructi on of new 10 ,000 sq.ft., 2-story home with attached garage, grading , and 4 associated retaining walls, at 3344 Palos Verdes Dr. West, Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles Cou nty . Date and time of receipt of communication: December 2 , 2013 at 3: 15pm Location of communication : Phone Type of communication: Teleconference Person(s) in attendance at time of communication: Susan McCabe , Anne Blemker Person(s) receiving communication: Wendy Mitchell Detailed substantive description of the content of communication: (Attach a copy of the complete text of any written material received.) I re ceived a briefing from the applicant's representative s in which we went through an electronic briefing booklet that was also provided to Commission staff. The rep resentatives described the project location, proposed development , and the contentions contained in the cu rrent appeal. The primary issues identified in the appeal include: maximization of public views and specific protection of views from Palos Verdes Drive West. The applicant's representatives expla ined how the applicant had worked exten sively with Commission staff to identify ways the project could be re-d esigned to be sensitive to public views . In response to suggestions from staff, the project has been re-d esigned to incorp orate a reduction in project height , increased side yard setback and vegetation height restrictions. As revi sed and conditioned by staff, the project is consistent with the view protection policies of the LCP and compatible with surrounding development. The applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation and special conditions and asks the Commi ssion to approve the project pe r staff Date: Signature of Commissioner:---------------------- Attachments 3-159 California Coastal Commission (Correspondence Letters/Notices) Attachments 3-160 ,,,, .. .,~ l ! STATE OF CALIFORNIA · NATURAL RES00r<CES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate , Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90602-4302 (562) 590-5071 Leza Mikhail Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9027 4 Dear Ms . Mikhail RECEIVED SEP I 7 2013 COMMl:JNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR September 16, 2013 The City's action in CDP No . ZON2012-00141was appealed to the Coastal Commission on 12/26/2012 by Commissioners Brian Brennan and Mary Shallenberger. The appeal primarily raised concerns regarding the project's impact on views from Palos Verdes Drive West. . After working with the applicant to address the view impacts raised by the appeal, the applicant has identified an alternative project plan (attached to this letter), that lowers the height of the proposed residence to offer views of the ocean from Palos Verdes Drive West. Commission staff has reviewed the alternative plan, and if it is accompanied by conditions to restrict height of landscaping and other structures and require a permit for future development on the site, staff believes the alternative plan would minimize impacts to views from Palos Verdes Drive West and would ensure consistency of the proposed project with the City's certified Local Coastal Program. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (562)590-5071. Sincerely, ~ J~A~z Coastal Program Analyst Attachments 3-161 --------' .. ____________ _ ----------- ---;-., '------------! '•,, '• --------------- ----........ ________ _ ----------................ ,......: ..... ...... ______ _ -------............ _____ _ --- ---------------------------------- .. .. ~, < Attachments 3-162 H n L H az :at~ Ii "' c. :i:.:l ,.~ i8 :: ;;;;; ;:;~ -;: :i ...... 6~ ~~ H rt l I I I I I I I I .. ::S~ I I~ j J, z 0] ~ ~~1~1 ! IL i I ~~iB 0 J <J<J<J<J<J J I 1i ' ~ I I • l ' z I Q :s f 0.. LL 0 I 0 ! "' ! l----------------------- Attachments 3-163 I I r ~ .. -...,; $ ..... -./>-•' ---.. ::: " I . J I I ~ Fl-FY.--+4'-t------------: ' . ' : ___ ., ________ ., . ' ' ' I I : . I : . ' : ' : . . ' . I : lU¥-6Llolll---i-l.-4'1 -·-· -------_, ~I 1 !I~ ~ I : 4.t . i l ~~ -~-· .. .,,...,-~.,,.:\ .... 4 ....... -; .. I l ..... ~ -_, ....... ___ . ----·----·· ... -·· --·"--·--·-y ~-------------··----.. -... ·-----..... j I <i<J<J<l<J J~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' , I :n· .... -... ,.tr<.t , --~>;• ; ~I ~ t: I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I ! ! ' i.df I 11 I f" 11 1 --,_~ ... I ' : ' ' ' : I I i L I h: I >-1 -----'~---~-,-~ I -·-~· I ... -; ....... .:...~ .. --.... .,. .... ' I i I . . ' 0] ~ f i i l 1 I i ,, ! o· I i:d ! <" i £1; ~ !il ~ w Attachments 3-164 ,. . View Preservation ( Draft Special Conditions for for Khosla Project (ZON2012-00141) Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, final landscape plans for the subject site that shall demonstrate the following: a. Within the property's side yard corridors, defined as the first 10' measured from the south side property line or the first 15' measured from the north side property line, for the entire length of the lot, all landscaping shall be composed of low growing plants which do not exceed an elevation of 270'. In the side yard corridors and rear yard area, all landscaping, walls, and structures shall be in compliance with the Development Code heights but in no case shall exceed a maximum elevation of 270', in order to preserve views from the street toward the ocean. b. All landscaping located between the residence and Palos Verdes Drive West, not including the side yard areas defined in "a" above, shall be composed of species which do not exceed the ridgeline of the house, which is at a maximum elevation of 272.5', and shall be maintained at that maximum height to preserve views from the street toward the ocean. c. All fencing located throughout the subject property, shall comply with the following requirements: I. Fencing within the side yard corridor, defined in "a" above, may be allowed above elevation 270', provided the fencing is limited to visually permeable designs and materials, such as wrought iron. New fencing shall be limited to the height limits defined by the City's Development Code and be consistent with this condition. All bars, beams, or other non-visually permeable materials used in the construction of a fence above elevation 270' shall be no more than one inch in thickness/width and shall be placed no less than 12 inches apart in distance. Alternative designs may be allowed only if the Director of Community Development determines that such designs are consistent with the intent of this condition and serve to minimize adverse effects to public views of the ocean. 2 . The existing 6' -0" tall, legal, non-conforming wrought iron fence along the front property is permitted to remain. In the event the existing front property line fence is removed (including the replacement of 50% or more of the existing structure or as defined in the Development Code, whichever is more strict), the new fence would need to comply with the City's Development Code, and the property owner will be required to receive the appropriate City approvals. 3 . The required pool fencing shall be located outside of the side yard corridors, as defined in "a" above. Attachments 3-165 STAT!~ OF C,6;.IFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES I ICY ========================== EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOllBmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMIVHSSIO.N SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 (562) 590-5071 FAX (562) 590-5084 www.coastal.ca.gov COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL DATE: December27,2012 TO: Leza Mikhail, Associated Planner . City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 FROM: John Del Arroz, Coastal Program Analyst RE: Commission Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 AECEIVl:o JAN.OJ 2013 ~rrr~ ~1'11.eNT Please be advised that the coastal development permit decision desc;-ii:l~d below has been appeaJed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public R~sources Code Sections 30603 and 30625. Therefore, the decision has been stayed pending Commission action on the appeal pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30623. Local Permit#: 2012-00141 Applicant(s): Mr. And Mrs. Khosia Description: Construction of a new, 10,382 square foot two story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage,· 2988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill and four retaining walls Location: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County) Local Decision: Approved· Appellant(s): Commissioner Brian Brennan; Commissioner Mary Shallenberger, Chair Date Appeal Filed: 12/26/2012 The Commission appeal number assigned to this appeal is A-5-RPV-12-350. The Commission hearing date has not yet been established for this appeal. Within 5 working days of receipt of this Commission Notification of Appeal, copies of all relevant documents and materials used in ·the City of Rancho Palos Verdes's consideration of this coastal development permit must be delivered to the South Coast District office of the Coastal Commission (California Administrative Code Section 13112). Please include copies of plans, relevant photographs, staff reports and related documents, findings (if not already forwarded), all correspondence, and a list, with addresses, of all who provided verbal testimony. A Commission staff report and notice of the hearing will be forwarded to you prior to the hearing. If you have any questions, pfease .contact John Del Arroz at the South Coast District office. · cc: Mr. And Mrs. Khosia (ft CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION \ Attachments 3-166 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RECEIVE. South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 South Coast ·Region APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEC 2 6 2012 SECTION I. Appellant(s) CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s): Coastal Commissioners: Brian Brennan & Mary Shallenberger, Chair 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed .NOTE: 1. .Name of local/port government: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2. Brief description of development being appealed: Construction of a new, 10.382 square foot. two-story residence with a 1.027 square foot garage, which lies in the City's Coastal Specific Plan district. In addition, this approval allows 2.988 cubic yards of cut. 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) associated retaining walls. 3. Development's location (street address, assessor's parcel no., cross street, etc.): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County 4. Description of decision being appealed: a. Approval; no special conditions: _________ _ b. Approval with special conditions:-'XX;..;:;;...:. _______ _ c. Denial: __________________ _ For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable. TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION: APPEAL NO: A--5-R PY-12-350 DATE FILED: December 26, 2012 DISTRICT: South Coast Attachments 3-167 5. Decision being appealed was made by (check one): a. Planning Director/Zoning Administrator: ____ _ b. City Council/Board of Supervisors: ______ _ c. Planning Commission:___.X......._ ________ _ d. Other: ----------------- 6. Date of local government's decision: ___ 91.-2 __ 5 ..... /1_.2.___ ____ _ 7. Local government's file number: ZON2012-00141 SECTION Ill. Identification of Other Interested Persons Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper as necessary.) 1. Name and mailing address of permit applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Khosla 2. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s). Include other parties which you know to be interested and should receive notice of this appeal. a. Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association 60 Laurel Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 b. Stiassni Family 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 c. Marcel and Irmgard Bond 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 d. Marcos Ehab 7416 Via Lorado Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page: 2 ... ~' Attachments 3-168 e. Jason Sikola 7369 Berry Hill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 f. Lenee Bilski 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page: 3 Attachments 3-169 a. SECTION IV.Reasons Supporting This Appeal Note: Appeals of local government Coastal Permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section, which continues on the next page. Please state briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.) The proposed project raises an issue as to consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified LCP. Although the LCP requires the protection of ocean views from Palos Verdes Drive; the proposed project has a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available across the vacant 1-acre project site. The project site, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, is located in Subregion 1 as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan. Policy No. 8 of Subregion 1 states, "Require proposed developments on lands affected by view corridors to maintain the resources". According to the City, the project site is not identified as being within a specific visual corridor. Nevertheless, the City acknowledges that the Coastal Specific Plan also protects views of the ocean across sites that are not within a designated visual corridor. Specifically, the Plan states: A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West/South/251h Street Corridor has visual aspects which qualify as views. Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qualify here ... To protect this visual relationship between the Drive and ocean in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, no buildings should project into a zone measured 2' down-arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline. (Page C-11-C-12, Corridors Element, Coastal Specific Plan) ·According to the City's analysis, this policy would require that the ridgeline of the proposed residence be limited to an elevation .of 268.0 as measured from Palos Verdes Drive West, the viewing station,. However, the City approved the proposed single family residence with a height exceeding this height limit (by 8.73') thereby allowing the structure to project into the existing ocean view. The findings state that the project as approved is however consistent with the visual resources protection provisions of the LUP and that the project as sited and designed is the best alternative for the construction of a new home on the downslope lot. The rationale for exceeding the height limit included: (a) the Development Code allows a house with a maximum height of 16' (279' elevation); (b) the applicant has proposed a residence with a height that is less than the maximum height (276.73' elevation); (c) the applicant is proposing a large Page: 4 Attachments 3-170 front yard setback; and (d) the applicant has proposed to grade the site to provide a single story fayade from Palos Verdes Drive. However, a review of the City's conditions of approval indicates that the City did not require the increased front yard setback. While the local approval requires a maximum building height and a maximum square footage of the home and garage and requires certification by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer (Conditions 20 and 21), Condition 13 requires the standard 20' setback. Additionally, Condition 14 references the 20-foot front-yard setback. The findings state that additional grading to further lower the height of the structure is infeasible, requiring over 3,000 cubic yards of additional grading. However, the findings do not explain why this amount of additional grading would be necessary to remove the projection of the structure into in the ocean views especially given that the project site is a large lot (1 acre) and is described as "gently sloping". The approved project includes 3,206 cubic yards of grading (2,988 cy cut and 218 cy fill) which includes 1,044 cy of grading for a swimming pool, spa, and landscaped yard area in the rear yard and a level courtyard in the front yard. Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading, only 1,281 cy is for the home and an additional 633cy is for a circular driveway in the front yard area. Although the local approval included a brief discussion of additional grading to further lower the height of the structure, this alternative was dismissed as being infeasible. The local approval did not consider other feasible alternatives that could result in a project that is consistent with the visual resources protection policies of the certified Plan. The project site is a large vacant lot that slopes away from the frontage road. The proposed 10,382 sq. ft. home with a 1,027 sq. ft. garage (total size 11,409 sq. ft.) is larger than the average of the 20 closet homes in the area. Only 1 other home in the area is larger. Perhaps a smaller home would have less visual impact. The proposed home could also be sited further downslope or located elsewhere on the 1-acre s·ite, thereby reducing the visual impact. These alternatives were not explored. As approved, the proposed project projects into the view corridor and is therefore inconsistent with the visual protection policies of the certified LCP. The project also has a significant adverse impact on existing public views to the ocean available from Palos Verdes Drive West and sets precedence for future development on the adjacent and nearby lots. Page: 5 Attachments 3-171 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF.LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 4) SECTION V. Certification Date: Note: If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also Section VI. I/We hereby authorize Agent Authorization to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal. Signature of Appellant(s) Date: Attachments 3-172 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ·Page 3 State briefly your reasons for this apperu. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsist.ent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.) · Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive Statement of your reasons of appeal; however., there must be sufficient disctission for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request. SECTION V. Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my /our lmowledge. Date: I e/e.1, /; e-r1 Agent Authorization: I designate the above identified person(s) to act as my agent in all matters pertaining to this appeal. Signed:------------ Date: (Documcnll) Attachments 3-173 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES .-:P'!i•l=C=Y ===============(.::·:·::: ======ED==M=U=ND=G=·==BR=O=W=N':.:J=R':.:' G==ovs="'="o=r= CALIFORNIA COASTAL CO ilL'11SSION ~ SOUTH COAST DISTRICT , 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 (562) 590·5071 FAX (562) 590.5084 www.coastal.ca.gov NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL PERIOD DATE: December 17, 2012 TO: Leza Mikhail, Associated Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. · Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 FROM: John Del Arrez, Coastal Program Analyst RE: Application No. 5·RPV·12·138 RECEIVED ri:~ l 9 ZOfZ COMMUNITYDEVEL.OPMENT DEPARTMENT Please be advised that on December 12, 2012 our office received notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below: Local Permit#: 2012-00141 Applicant(s): Mr. And Mrs. Khosia Description: Construction of a new, 10,382 square foot two story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, 2988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill and four retaining walls Location: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County) Unless an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become final at the end of the Commission appeal period. The appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on December 27, 2012. . Our office will notify you if an appeal is filed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the address and telephone number shown above. cc: Mr. And Mrs. Khosia dt CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Attachments 3-174 ~ I! (\}''•) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-f'<~A.TURAL RESOt.ikCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. ZON2012-00141 Dear Leza, . EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR October 29, 2012 After a review of the available evidence, Commission staff has determined that the project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West is located within an appealable area. Coastal Act Section 30603 states that, after certification of a local coastal program, only certain developments approved by the local government can be appealed to the Commission. Part (a) (1) specifies that development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of the beach or the mean high tideline, whichever is the greater distance, is appealable. · Section 13011 of the Commission's administrative regulations define the phrase "first public road paralleling the sea as: "that road nearest to the sea, as defined in Section 30115 of the Public Resources Code, which: (a) Is lawfully open to uninterrupted public use and is suitable for such use; (b) Is publicly maintained; (c) Is an improved, all-weather road open to motor vehicle traffic in at least one direction; (d) Is not subject to any restrictions on use by the public except when closed due to an emergency or when closed temporarily for military purposes; and (e) Does in fact connect with other public roads providing a continuous access system, and generally parallels and follows the shoreline of the sea .. ;" The City's determination that the project is not appealable is based on the project's location landward of Marguerite Drive, which is taken to be the first public road paralleling the sea. Although Marguerite Drive appears to meet criteria a) through d) of Section 13011, it does not appear to meet criteria e). Marguerite Drive terminates at a cul-de-:sac and does not connect with other roads to provide a continuous access system. Therefore, the first public road paralleling the sea in this area appears to be Palos Verdes Drive West and the subject site is located within the appealable area. Furthermore, this determination matches the Post Certification Appeals Map on file in the Commission's San Francisco office, which also depicts the subject location as being within the appeals area. Thank you for your consideration. Are any project plans available to assist in the Commission staff's review of the project? Please contact me at the number located above if you wish to discuss this matter further. ~jffiY John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst I. / •' • ., Attachments 3-175 ' . • (f["'' • STATE OF CALIFORNIA~NATURAL REs~U!cEs AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 October 29, 2012 DATE: TO: '9~ce NOTIFICATION OF DEFICIENT NOT~ENoi-:0 ~ ""~ '<oe Ocfober 29, 2012 l>~ ~o~. FROM: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner ~,~~'°" John Del Arroz, Coastal Program Analyst ~,.. ~ RE: Notice of Final Decision for CDP ZON2012-00141 Please be advised of the following deficiency(ies) in the notice of local action we have received for Local Permit No. ZON2012-00141 pursuant to 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13571 or 13332. APPLICANT(S): Mr. and Mrs. Khosla DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new, 10,382 square foot, two story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, 2988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill and four retaining walls. LOCATION: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Deficiency noted by check mark 1. _ Project description not included or not clear. . 2. _Conditions for approval and.writt~n findings not included. C.. t7rr((,;f (}., ut. 3. _x_ Procedures for appeal of the decision to the Coastal Commission not ~ ( 4. _Notice not given to those who requested it. ls d-~ fl· 5. _Applicant name is missing, location and date of Final Action. f/.{Q.4t Sit, ~W As a result of the deficiency(ies) noted >'IJd-. Post-Certification LCP _x_ The effective date of the local government action has been suspendeq, and the 10 working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of action is received in this office. (14 Cal. Admin. Code "' Sections 13570, 13572.) Post-Certification LUP _The effective date of the local government action has been suspended, and the 20 working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of action is received in this office. (14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 13570, 13572.) If you have any questions, please contact John Del Arrez at the South Coast Area office. Attachments 3-176 P.C. Resolution No. 2012-12 (Approved September 25, 2012) Attachments 3-177 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 20l2-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, GRADING PERMIT AND COASTAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,382 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,027 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A VACANT DOWNSLOPING LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 2,988 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 218 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND FOUR (4) ASSOICATED RETAINING WALLS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO ZON2012-00141). WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the property owner, Ravi Khosla, submitted applications for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for approval to construct a new home on a vacant residential property; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuantto the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. C'CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested applications would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(a); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, at which time the public hearing was continued to September 25, 2012 to allow Staff and the Applicant time to research any benefits of reducing the proposed ridgeline by 1 '-9" and any reduction in overall gracing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE .,, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission does hereby find that a Site Plan Review can be approved as the 10,382 square foot residence, 1,027 square foot garage, pool, spa and other ancillary improvements (trellis, firepit, BBQ, and covered entry) comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zoning district. Specifically, the proposed improvements will meet the required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks, as well as the 16'/30' building height and maximum 25% lot coverage. Attachments 3-178 Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact in order to approve the Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new residence and other ancillary improvements because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The underlying zoning district is single-family residential. The proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot. A total of 3,206 cubic yards of cut will be conducted on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas. More specifically, 1,281 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the new residence, 663 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway, 217 cubic yards of cut to create a level courtyard at the front of the residence, and 827 cubic yards of cut at the rear of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal amount of dirt (218 cubic yards) within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, It appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable yard area. B. The grading would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor views from the viewing area of neighboring properties as the proposed retaining walls will follow the existing contours as seen from the street and neighboring properties. A total of four (4) retaining walls are proposed around the property. Three (3) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A fourth retaining wall will reach a maximum height of 3' -6" in the rear yard of the property, Although Staff would consider the height of the retaining wall to be minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure, due to the fact that the applicant is excavating beneath the new residence, the finished grade will ultimately be lowered. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have been built in the same location. C. The proposed grading which accommodates the new residence and development of the single-family residential lot minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence, vehicular access, ... and useable rear yard area. The existing contours outside of the graded area and retaining walls will be maintained. Further, the vacant lot is zoned for residential development, and can accommodate a new single-family residence. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 ) Page 2of10 Attachments 3-179 manufactured slope into natural topography. The majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and hillside surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. E. The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The new residence will be proportional to the neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the original character, style and setting of the neighborhood. While the square footage of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). With regard to bulk and mass, the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side of Marguerite Drive. The orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Additionally, although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, the proposed architectU'e and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fa~de. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents, such as multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, and first and second story accent molding, to break up the potential impacts of a large home. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. G. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill and height of retaining walls for three (3) of the four (4) proposed retaining walls. More specifically, no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. The construction of the residence and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-10%' in order to accommodate the residence which is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home on a downslope lot that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 3of10 Attachments 3-180 H. Although a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall exceeds the allowable heights for upslope retaining walls on a single-family residential lot, the Planning Commission finds that the retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in Section 17. 76.040 of the Municipal Code. Approving the deviation to the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that would help support the rear and side yard of the property. Further, retaining walls are commonly found within the hillside neighborhood and approval of the retaining wall which exceeds 3'-6" would not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside topography. Additionally, the retaining wall cannot be seen from other neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. lastly, the retaining walland grading would not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a soil engineering report. I. Pursuantto Section 17.76.040(E)(10)(e) of the RPV Municipal Code, the City is required to notify all owners of property adjacent to the subject property whenever a grading permit is granted for development in excess of that permissible under Section 17. 76.040(E)(9) of the RPV Municipal Code. As such, a Notice of Decision will be sent to the following adjacent property owners: 1} lunada Pointe Homeowners Association/ 60 laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2) Stiassni Family/ 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 3) Marcel and Irmgard Bond/ 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab / 7416 Via lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Section 3: The Coastal Permit to allow the construction of a new single-family residence within the Coastal Zone can be approved because: A The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which contains Policy No. 8 (pg. S1-11} that "[requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should be designed so as to not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicanfs plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant's lot, Is at an average elevation of 268.0'. When implementing the guidelines of the Coastal Specific Plan, the applicant would be limited to constructing a residence with a ridgeline just above the 268.0 curb elevation, and would require over 3,000 more cubic yards of grading. The Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) of the Coastal Specific Plan, "require[s] "' development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... "The subject property is located on a downslope lot, whereby the Development Code allows a residence to be constructed at 16'-0" as measured from average elevation of the setback line (elevation 263.0'} to the top of the highest ridgeline. This would allow a home to be built "by-right" with a ridgeline elevation of 279.0'. The applicant has designed a home with a maximum ridgeline of 276.73', P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 4of10 Attachments 3-181 ··.1 r·-. '-. .... · which is below this "by-right" height limit. Additionally, the applicant has provided a large front yard setback, and graded down to provide a single story facade to reduce the impacts of a large home as seen from the street. B. The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area. Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be aJProVed because: A The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property. The proposed residence will be located on a lot that was previously developed witha single-family residence prior to the City's incorporation. As noted in the grading findings, the proposed grading outside of the construction of the residence and access is minimal and will fdlow the contours of the existing land, with the exception of one small area (less than 10% of the lot area) in the south side yard where a 5'-0" tall retaining wall will be located. B. The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies. Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed i:roject complies with the performance criterion listed in the Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The subject property was previously developed with a single-family residential dwelling and ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and Is zoned for residential use. The property is listed as a potential area for archaeological and paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" will be required to be reported immediately to the Community Development Director and are to be first offered to the City for preservation. Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 5of10 ··' Attachments 3-182 A The proposed residence is located on a legal, downsloping single-family residential Jot which can accommodate the construction of a home with a 16'/30' building height envelope. The project is not located within a view corridor as designated by the Coastal Specific Plan of the City. Furthermore, the project has been designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West by providing a large front yard setback and ridgeline below what could be building "by-right" on a downs loping lot. Furthermore, the property is located just south of a large open space area that provides ocean views for pedestrians and drivers along Palos Verdes Drive West. Construction of a new home on the previously developed property would not significantly affect the ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the applicant is grading down to accommodate the construction of the residence and following the natural contours to grade the yard areas within the front and rear yard of the home. Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1 )(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following September 25, 2012, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141) to allow the construction of a new, two-story single-family home and associated grading and retaining walls, located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Comdss:l.oners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin and Cbai.rman Tetreault NOES: Vice Chairman Rwmbiser ABSTENTIONS: Rone RECUSALS: Rone ABSENT: C'..olllmissioner Lew.I.a Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 6of10 Attachments 3-183 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON20l2-00141 (Khosla, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 7of10 Attachments 3-184 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 11. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 25% lot coverage (24.9% proposed). 13. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20' front (50'-0" proposed to residence), 15' rear (85'-0" proposed), 5' north side (25'-0" proposed to residence) and 5' east side (10'-9" proposed). 14. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 15. A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance. 16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is :· permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically ... located. 17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 18. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 8of10 Attachments 3-185 Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood-burning devices. 20. This approval is for a 10,382 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and a 1,027 square-foot 4-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. ' 21. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 276.73'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor Elevation at 249.572'. 22. The proposed chimney(s) may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 23. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy. Project Specific Conditions: 24. This approval includes a total of 3,206 cubic yards of grading (2,988 cubic yards of cut and 218 cubic yards of fill 25. The following four (4) retaining walls are approved: a. A downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard ranging in height from 1'-0" to 3' -6" in overall height. b. A 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located adjacent to the proposed driveway c. A 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall within the front yard d. A 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located along the south side property line All other planter walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 2' -11" and shall be located .- at least 3'-0" from any other walls 26. The applicant shall provide and maintain landscaping to screen the 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall. All landscaping shall be installed and approved by the Director prior to final on the building permit for the residence. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 9of10 Attachments 3-186 27. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall obtain all applicable NPDES permits and comply with all applicable NPDES requirements. 28. The property owner shall comply with Chapter 15.34 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Documentation Package as defined by Chapter 15.34. 29. The property owner shall be prohibited from the use of herbicides to control or kill vegetation. 30. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property. The survey results shall be provided to the Community Development Director or his/her designee for review prior to grading permit issuance. 31. If the results of the Phase 1 archaeological survey identify the potential existence of archaeological and/or paleontological resources, prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologlst to be on site during all rough operations. Qualifications of the archaeologist and paleontologist shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Community Development Director. All archaeological and paleontological finds shall be first offered to the City for preservation. 32. The applicant shall not use any portion of the proposed residence as a second dwelling unit without obtaining the appropriate Planning and Building Permits. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the new residence, a covenant shall be recorded with the country recorder as a covenant running with the land prohibiting the use of a second dwelling unit without further planning review and approval. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation, and shall prohibit the use of more than one cooking facility on the property unless approval of a Second Dwelling Unit is approved by the Community Development Department. A cooking facility includes a stove, oven, range, or any other built-in appliance related to food preparation. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 10of10 Attachments 3-187 P.C. Staff Report (September 25, 2012) Attachments 3-188 CfTYOF t•••, \. . RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF TH~N:NG COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRE\f te/' SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 SUBJECT: COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141); PROJECT ADDRESS: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST; APPLICANT: KHOSLA D Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planne\._ ~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2012-_, thereby approving a Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012-00141) for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot residence and 1,027 square foot garage. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On September 11, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed Staffs analysis and the applicant's revised design for a new residence on a vacant lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. At the meeting, the applicant presented to the Planning Commission a slightly revised project from the project presented to the Planning Commission at its August 14, 2012 meeting that increased the front yard setback by 10'-0", reduced the proposed ridgeline from 277.45' to 276.73', reduced the grading by 772 cubic yards and reduced the square footage of the proposed residence by 127 square feet. After hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and determined that the revised project did not create excessive grading, was compatible with the immediate neighborhood and was consistent with the guidelines set for in the City's Coastal Specific Plan. As such, the Planning Commission ·approved the Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (6-1, with Commissioner Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting), and directed Staff to return to the September 25, 2012 meeting with the appropriate approval Resolution on the Consent Calendar. The Resolution approving the project is now before the Planning Commission for adoption. Attachment: P.C. Resolution No. 2012-_ Attachments 3-189 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, GRADING PERMIT AND .COASTAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,382 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,027 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A VACANT DOWNSLOPING LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 2,988 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 218 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND FOUR (4) ASSOICATED RETAINING WALLS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO ZON2012-00141). WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the property owner, Ravi Khosla, submitted applications for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for approval to construct a new home on a vacant residential property; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(t) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement}, Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested applications would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(a); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, at which time the public hearing was continued to September 25, 2012 to allow Staff and the Applicant time to research any benefits of reducing the proposed ridgeline by 1 '-9" and any reduction in overall gradirg. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission does hereby find that a Site Plan Review can be approved as the 10,382 square foot residence, 1,027 square foot garage, pool, spa and other ancillary improvements (trellis, firepit, BBQ, and covered entry) comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zoning district. Specifically, the proposed improvements will meet the required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks, as well as the 16'/30' building height and maximum 25% lot coverage. Attachments 3-190 diJRAf I Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact in order to approve the Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new residence and other ancillary improvements because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The underlying zoning district is single-family residential. The proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot. A total of 3,206 cubic yards of cut will be conducted on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas. More specifically, 1,281 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the new residence, 663 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway, 217 cubic yards of cut to create a level courtyard at the front of the residence, and 827 cubic yards of cut at the rear of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal amount of dirt (218 cubic yards) within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, it appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable yard area. B. The grading would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor views from the viewing area of neighboring properties as the proposed retaining walls will follow the existing contours as seen from the street and neighboring properties. A total of four (4) retaining walls are proposed around the property. Three (3) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A fourth retaining wall will reach a maximum height of 3' -6n in the rear yard of the property. Although Staff would consider the height of the retaining wall to be minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure, due to the fact that the applicant is excavating beneath the new residence, the finished grade will ultimately be lowered. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have been built in the same location. c. The proposed grading which accommodates the new residence and development of the single-family residential lot minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence, vehicular access, and useable rear yard area. The existing contours outside of the graded area and retaining walls will be maintained. Further, the vacant lot is zoned for residential development, and can accommodate a new single-family residence. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 2of10 Attachments 3-191 · · ORAf .~ ·-~ i manufactured slope into natural topography. The majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and hillside surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. E. The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The new residence will be proportional to the neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the original character, style and setting of the neighborhood. While the square footage of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). With regard to bulk and mass, the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side of Marguerite Drive. The orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Additionally, although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fayade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents, such as multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, and first and second story accent molding, to break up the potential impacts of a large home. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. G. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill and height of retaining walls for three (3) of the four (4) proposed retaining walls. More specifically, no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. The construction of the residence and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-10%' in order to accommodate the residence which is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home on a downslope lot that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 3of10 Attachments 3-192 ~DRAFT H. Although a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall exceeds the allowable heights for upslope retaining walls on a single-family residential lot, the Planning Commission finds that the retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in Section 17.76.040 of the Municipal Code. Approving the deviation to the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that would help support the rear and side yard of the property. Further, retaining walls are commonly found within the hillside neighborhood and approval of the retaining wall which exceeds 3'-6" would not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside topography. Additionally, the retaining wall cannot be seen from other neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. Lastly, the retaining walland grading would not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a soil engineering report. I. Pursuantto Section 17.76.040(E)(10)(e) of the RPV Municipal Code, the City is required to notify all owners of property adjacent to the subject property whenever a grading permit is granted for development in excess of that permissible under Section 17. 76.040(E)(9) of the RPV Municipal Code. As such, a Notice of Decision will be sent to the following adjacent property owners: 1) Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association/ 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2) Stiassni Family/ 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 3) Marcel and Irmgard Bond/ 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab / 7416 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Section 3: The Coastal Permit to allow the construction of a new single-family residence within the Coastal Zone can be approved because: A. The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which contains Policy No. 8 (pg. 81-11) that "{requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should be designed so as to not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicant's plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant's lot, is at an average elevation of 268.0'. When implementing the guidelines of the Coastal Specific Plan, the applicant would be limited to constructing a residence with a ridgeline just above the 268.0 curb elevation, and would require over 3,000 more cubic yards of grading. The Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) of the Coastal Specific Plan, "require[s) development proposals within areas which. might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... "The subject property is located on a downslope lot, whereby the Development Code allows a residence to be constructed at 16'-0" as measured from average elevation of the setback line (elevation 263.0') to the top of the highest ridgeline. This would allow a home to be built "by-right" with a ridgeline elevation of 279.0'. The applicant has designed a home with a maximum ridgeline of 276.73', P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 4 of 10 Attachments 3-193 ~DRAFT which is below this "by-right" height limit. Additionally, the applicant has provided a large front yard setback, and graded down to provide a single story facade to reduce the impacts of a large home as seen from the street. 8. The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area. Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be appioved because: A. The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property. The proposed residence will be located on a lot that was previously developed with a single-family residence prior to the City's incorporation. As noted in the grading findings, the proposed grading outside of the construction of the residence and access is minimal and will folbw the contours of the existing land, with the exception of one small area (less than 10% of the lot area) in the south side yard where a 5~0" tall retaining wall will be located. 8. The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies. Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed prqect complies with the performance criterion listed in the Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The subject property was previously developed with a single-family residential dwelling and ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and is zoned for residential use. The property is listed as a potential area for archaeological and paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" will be required to be reported immediately to the Community Development Director and are to be first offered to the City for preservation. Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) of Chapter 17 .40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 5of10 Attachments 3-194 ~DRAFT A. The proposed residence is located on a legal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home with a 16'/30' building height envelope. The project is not located within a view corridor as designated by the Coastal Specific Plan of the City. Furthermore, the project has been designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West by providing a large front yard setback and ridgeline below what could be building "by-right" on a downsloping lot. Furthermore, the property is located just south of a large open space area that provides ocean views for pedestrians and drivers along Palos Verdes Drive West. Construction of a new home on the previously developed property would not significantly affect the ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the applicant is grading down to accommodate the construction of the residence and following the natural contours to grade the yard areas within the front and rear yard of the home. Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17 .02.040(C){1 ){g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following September 25, 2012, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141) to allow the construction of a new, two-story single-family home and associated grading and retaining walls, located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Diredor Paul Tetreault Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 6of10 Attachments 3-195 General Conditions: EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2012-00141 (Khosla, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) C''~ ~DRAFT 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Plblic Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 7of10 Attachments 3-196 ~DRAFT 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 11. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of25% lot coverage (24.9% proposed). 13. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20' front (50'-0" proposed to residence), 15' rear (85'-0" proposed), 5' north side (25'-0" proposed to residence) and 5' east side (10'-9" proposed). 14. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 15. A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance. 16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 18. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 8of10 Attachments 3-197 ;,;· .~DRAFT Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood-burning devices. 20. This approval is for a 10,382 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and a 1,027 square-foot 4-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATDN REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land sucveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 21. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 276.73'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor Elevation at 249.572'. 22. The proposed chimney(s) may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 23. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy. Project Specific Conditions: 24. This approval includes a total of 3,206 cubic yards of grading (2,988 cubic yards of cut and 218 cubic yards of fill. 25. The following four (4) retaining walls are approved: a. A downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard ranging in height from 1'-0" to 3'-6" in overall height. b. A 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located adjacent to the proposed driveway c. A 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall within the front yard d. A 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located along the south side property line All other planter walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 2'-11" and shall be located at least 3'-0" from any other walls 26. The applicant shall provide and maintain landscaping to screen the 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall. All landscaping shall be installed and approved by the Director prior to final on the building permit for the residence. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 9of10 Attachments 3-198 c·,., ~DRAFT 27. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall obtain all applicable NPDES permits and comply with all applicable NPDES requirements. 28. The property owner shall comply with Chapter 15.34 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Documentation Package as defined by Chapter 15.34. 29. The property owner shall be prohibited from the use of herbicides to control or kill vegetation. 30. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property. The survey results shall be provided to the Community Development Director or his/her designee for review prior to grading permit issuance. 31. If the results of the Phase 1 archaeological survey identify the potential existence of archaeological and/or paleontological resources, prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. Qualifications of the archaeologist and paleontologist shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Community Development Director. AU archaeological and paleontological finds shall be first offered to the City for preservation. 32. The applicant shall not use any portion of the proposed residence as a second dwelling unit without obtaining the appropriate Planning and Building Permits. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the new residence, a covenant shall be recorded with the country recorder as a covenant running with the land prohibiting the use of a second dwelling unit without further planning review and approval. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation, and shall prohibit the use of more than one cooking facility on the property unless approval of a Second Dwelling Unit is approved by the Community Development Department. A cooking facility includes a stove, oven, range, or any other built-in appliance related to food preparation. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 10of10 Attachments 3-199 ' . Leza Mikhail From: Sent: Jason Sikola Dsikola@yahoo.com] Sunday, September 09, 2012 11 :05 PM To: PlanningCommission; Leza Mikhail Cc: Jason Sikola Subject: local concern Page 1of1 ----~~·---·--··---------· ······-·-~ .. ~-~-·' ----······· Attachments: 3344 pv west.tiff; recent development1 .tiff; recent development2.tiff; recent development3.tiff Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commision, I am emailing you all today to express my continued concern about the planned construction on 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West I Tomaro Architecture. The main merits of my concern lie in the project's violatioi:i of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 17 .02.030 -Developmental standards as well as Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 17. 02. 040 -View preservation and restoration. Both codes seem to drive this project to a more compatible scale or style. The apparent bulk of the proposed structure would greatly dwarf the structures of the immediate neighborhood as well as destroy several far views from viewing areas of properties to the east of the project. The lot in question residing on 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West has been vacant since 1999 and was originally a one story, 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom residence built in 1950 to the scale of 2100 sq. ft.(photo attached). The two lots immediately south of the property, 3420 Palos Verdes Drive West and 3400 Palos Verdes Drive west, are the closest properties, most similar in lot size, and currently have one story structures below 4700 sq ft .. The planning commission is probably aware of these two properties from their recent involvement in a view restoration and preservation permit due to the overgrowth of foliage on both properties. I would like to make a notion for the planning committee to allow the property residing on 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West grading 10-15 feet beyond the staffs recommendations in order to preserve the natural resources of the said area and call for the future protection of such resources. Below and attached are photos of recent projects and developenments in the immediate neighborhood which have graded lower in order to satisfy Rancho Palos Verdes' general plan to recognize the city's natural resources and call for their protection. In both cases, the overall ridgelines of the properties were at or below street level in order to preserve the city's natural resources. Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact me or e-mail me with your thoughts. Jason Sikola Cell (310) 941-7246 Work (310) 373-6326 9/10/2012 Attachments 3-200 Attachments 3-201 Attachments 3-202 Attachments 3-203 Attachments 3-204 P.C. Minutes (September 25, 2012) Attachments 3-205 1. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case NO. ZON2012- 00141l: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Rojas noted this item was before the Commission at their last meeting at which time the Commission approved the proposed new home. Before the Commission is the Resolution that memorializes the Commission's decision. The Commission approved the Resolution as presented, 5-1, with Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting since he voted to not approve the project as presented at the last meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Crestrid e Senior Housin Draft Environmental Im act review sco meeting (Case No. ZON2012-00067 and SUB2012-00001l:Crestrid Senior Planner Schonborn began by introducing Jennifer Haddow from neon Consulting, who was instrumental in helping with drafting the docume before the Commission. He briefly described the proposed project as well as e necessary entitlements for the project. He explained the draft EIR is curre y being circulated and the entitlements and merits of the project will be considered a future meeting. He touched on the purpose of the CEQA analysis involved wit he project. He also discussed the purpose of the public comments meeting, oting where the City currently is in the process. Mr. Schonborn noted issues identifi as less than significant in the Initial Study, and noted issues identified as potenti significant and analyzed in the draft EIR, as discussed in the staff report. Commissioner Leon asked staff how they c sidered the extensive grading required for this project to be mitigatable. Senior Planner Schonborn explaine hat there will be. a designated haul route that the contractor must follow. In additio , staff had to take into consideration that this is almost a ten acre site, primarily hillsid and the main function of the grading is to lower the height of the site which will t n reduce the height of the buildings. The trucks going down Hawthorne Bouleva would be a short-term impact. He estimated 144 truck trips daily during the short te phase for the excavation and grading of the property. He explained that was lo ed at in comparison to the level of services at each of the key intersections. He ted that even 144 truck trips per day did not result in a level of service that wou be deemed to be a significant impact. Commissio r Tomblin stated he did not see any discussion in the staff report in terms of outdoo 1ghting. Seni Planner Schonborn answered that the outdoor lighting was found to have a less tha significant impact, and additional measures can be incorporated in terms of Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2012 Page 2 Attachments 3-206 P.C. Staff Report {September 11, 2012) Attachments 3-207 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~\ f'~ SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 SUBJECT: COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE ·NO. ZON2012-00141); PROJECT ADDRESS: 3344 PALSO VERDES DRIVE WEST; APPLICANT: KHOSLA Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner @ RECOMMENDATION 1) Review Staff's additional analysis and the applicant's revised design to determine whether the modifications and additional information address the Commission's concerns with the proposed project; and 2) If the Commission's concerns have been addressed then close the public hearing, approve the subject application (Case No. ZON2012-00141 ), and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution for approval for the Commission's consideration and adoption. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the above-referenced case for a new single-family residence on a vacant lot located in the City's Coastal Zone. Staff's .recommendation at the time was to open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the project, and direct the applicant to slightly redesign the project. As noted in the August 14, 2012 Staff Report (attached), Staff felt that the.mandatory findings for the Coastal Permit could be made if the ridgeline of the residence was reduced by 1'-9", to the height that was previously approved by the Planning Commission (elevation 275.75'). Additionally, Staff felt that the quantity of grading in the rear yard was excessive and could be reduced through a slight redesign of the project. After hearing the public testimony and discussing the various aspects of the project, the Planning Commission questioned the merits of reducing the ridgeline by 1 '-9" and how the grading quantity would be affected by said reduction. Additionally, the Planning Attachments 3-208 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Pa e2 Commission requested further clarification on Staff's position on the overall quantity of grading within the rear yard, and asked the applicant to provide Staff with an opinion of what quantity of grading would be required to completely lower the ridgeline of the residence to the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West (elevation of 268.0'). After identifying these concerns, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 11, 2012. DISSCUSSION In response to the concerns identified by Staff in the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, on September 4, 2012, after discussing revisions with the home owner, the applicant provided Staff with a revised project design. Below, Staff has provided a discussion of the Planning Commissions comments and the revised project that was submitted by the applicant. Analysis of Potential Ridgeline Reduction As noted in the August 14, 2012 Staff Report, the subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), however is not located within a specific visual corridor. The CSP provides a guideline for properties not located within a visual corridor by noting that proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from a horizontal plane, as measured from a "viewing station." As discussed in the August 14th report, the residence would not meet this guideline with a ridgeline elevation of 277 .45'. However, Staff had noted that the Planning Commission previously approved a residence on this property at a maximum 275.75' ridgeline elevation. Taking into consideration the previous decision, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the ridgeline of the residence to the previously approved height. While discussing the merits of reducing the ridgeline elevation from 277 .45' to 275. 75' (1 '- 9" reduction), the Planning Commission questioned whether requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline would increase any ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. As such, the Planning Commission directed Staff to analyze the benefits of reducing the ridge line by 1 '-9". In order to conduct this analysis, the applicant volunteered to provide a red-colored string · of flags on the existing silhouette to depict a difference in ridgeline elevations between 277.45' and 275.75'. After the flags were installed, Staff observed the different ridgeline elevations as seen from PVDW, northbound and southbound. Ultimately, Staff determined that a reduction in the ridgeline by 1'-9" does not create a discernable gain in ocean view from northbound or southbound PVDW. In light of this additional research, Staff opines that a residence at an elevation of either 277.45' or 275.75' would not make a difference in terms of ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the Development Code requires the height of a downsloping lot to be 16' -0" as measured from the average elevation of the setback line Attachments 3-209 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page3 (263.0'), which would allow a residence to be constructed "by-right" with a ridgeline of 279.0'. Due to the fact that the residence would be slightly lower than the height of a similar residence that could be built "by-right" in the same location, and requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline to 275.75' would not create a benefit to the community in terms of ocean views from PVDW, Staff Would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the revised project with a ridge elevation of 276.73'. APPiicant's Redesigned Project and Further Grading Analysis Notwithstanding the fact that a reduction of the ridgeline to 275.75' would not create a noticeable increase in ocean views from PVDW, the applicant decided to slightly relocate and redesign the residence to address some of Staff's previous comments. After discussing potential modifications that would not impact the neighbor to the south, the applicant decided to increase the front yard setback by 10'-0". In addition, the applicant reduced the plate height of the upper floor level, resulting in a ridgeline reduction from 277.45' to 276. 73'. As a result of relocating the residence further back on the property, the square footage of the residence was reduced by 127 square feet and the overall grading quantity was reduced by 772 cubic yards. In analyzing the revised design, Staff is of the opinion that the increased setback, ridgeline reduction and square footage reduction would not create any new impacts. As noted in the August 14th Staff Report, Staff was able to support the 2,512 cubic yards grading related to the construction of the residence, driveway and nominal amount of grading in the front yard area. As a result of the redesigned residence proposed by the applicant, the overall grading quantity in these areas has been reduced by 237 cubic yards (2,275 cubic yards proposed) and Staff can still support the grading in these areas. Previously, Staff had a concern with the overall quantity of grading (1,450 cubic yards) proposed to cr~ate a level rear yard area. Although Staff was able to make the findings for the retaining walls associated with the rear yard grading, Staff felt that the grading quantity was extensive and could be further reduced. In order to reduce the overall rear yard grading, the applicant moved the structure 10' to the west, thereby reducing the overall square footage of the rear yard. In addition, the applicant reduced the depth of cut in the rear yard by 6 inches and reduced the depth of fill by 1 '-0". As a result of these changes, the overall quantity of fill in the rear yard was reduced from 148 cubic yards to 104 cubic yards, and the overall quantity of cut was reduced from 1,302 cubic yards to 827 cubic yards. Additionally, the associated garden walls surrounding the rear yard follow the natural .,, contours, with the exception of one small area where a retaining wall was reduced from 4'- 6" to 3'-6". By reducing the yard area and depths of grading, the revised grading now minimizes disturbances to the natural contours, and would not exceed that which is necessary for the primary use of the lot. As such, based on the revised design of the residence and grading, Staff can support the project in its entirety. Grading Quantity Associated with reducing the Ridge/ine to the Curb Elevation At the August 14th public hearing, there was a request by a neighbor to require the applicant to reduce the overall ridgeline to the elevation of the adjacent curb (elevation Attachments 3-210 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page4 268.0'). As the discussion ensued, the Planning Commission questioned whether requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline from 277.75' to 268.0' would render the proposed project infeasible. The Planning Commission did not direct the applicant to redesign the project to lower the ridgeline to an elevation of 268.0', but questioned how much grading would be involved in such a request. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to estimate any increase in the quantity of grading that would result from lowering the proposed home by over 9 feet. In speaking with the applicant, the additional grading beneath the home would increase by 3,456 cubic yards, not including any other grading outside of the residence footprint, and would not be feasible to construct. Additionally, Staff is of the opinion that an increase in grading by this amount, on top of what is already proposed (3,206 cubic yards), would not meet the grading criterion and would be considered excessive grading. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Additional Landscaping Requirement During the August 14th public hearing, Commissioner Tomblin requested that Staff research the landscaping requirements of Oceanfront Estates to determine if any landscaping requirements from the residential tract could be applied to the proposed development. Staff found the following conditions of approval related to landscaping heights at Oceanfront Estates: • The shrubs and foliage along Palos Verdes Drive West shall be maintained so as not to exceed one foot (1'-0") in height. • All landscaping (including parkway trees) shall be selected and maintained so that no trees or group of trees ob$tructs views from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties consistent with the City Council policy regarding street trees. • Landscaping within all open space areas shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected and so that solar access to all dwelling units is protected. It is important to note that the abovementioned conditions of approval were imposed on the . areas outside of the residential lots (common area) as part of the creation and approval of a residential tract under a Planned Residential Development (RPO). When applying for a new subdivision through an RPO, the City may impose specific development standards that are applicable to that specific tract and are different than the requirements of the City's Development Code. The subject property that is part of this public hearing is a single-family residential lot that does not belong to the Oceanfront Estates RPO and is not subject to the abovementioned landscaping conditions. The property that is part of this application is subject to the requirements and rights of the City's Development Code, which allows all property owners to install hedges in their front yard up to a maximum height of 42" (30" in an intersection visibility triangle). As such, the Planning Commission is not able to restrict the front yard hedges close to PVDW beyond what the Development Code allows the Attachments 3-211 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Pages property owner "by-right." It is important to note, however that the both the subject lot and the residential lots in Oceanfront Estates are both subject to Proposition M which restricts the height of trees on residential lots. More specifically, Proposition M restricts trees to 16'- 0" or the top of the ridgeline of the primary home, whichever is lower. The proposed project is subject Chapter 15.34 of the RPV Municipal Code and will be required to submit a Water Efficient Landscape Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of a Building Permit. At that time; Staff will ensure that all proposed trees can thrive at heights limited by Proposition M. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis and the applicant's revised project, Staff is able to support the applicant's request for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141). The revised project would reduce the grading quantities by 722 cubic yards, increase the front yard setback by 1 O' -0" and reduce the overall ridgeline of the residence from 277 .45' to 276. 73'. Furthermore, it is Staff's opinion that requiring the applicant to grade down to an elevation of 268.0' would create a need for an extensive amount of grading that could not be supported by Staff. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the modifications and additional information submitted by the applicant to determine if the additional information addresses the Commission's concerns, approve the project and direct Staff to bring the appropriate Resolution to the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. Attachments: • August 14, 2012 P.C. Staff Report o Correspondence Letters • August 14, 2012 Late Correspondence • Revised Project Plans Attachments 3-212 P.C. Minutes (September 11, 2012) · Attachments 3-213 1. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012- 00141): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and the Planning Commission's request that staff research any merits or benefits to the community traveling on Palos Verdes Drive West of reducing the ridgeline of the home by approximately 1 foot 9 inches. As a result of this request, the applicant provided an extra string on the silhouette indicating the difference in elevation. She showed photos of silhouette with the added string taken from Palos Verdes Drive West. She explained that staff did not feel requiring the applicant to lower the ridgeline 1 foot 9 inches created any benefit and staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the project at the proposed height. She also explained that the applicant considered redesigning the project based upon staff's previous comments in the August 14th staff report. As a result, the applicant chose to increase the front setback by approximately 10 feet, change the ridgeline from 277,45 to 276.73, eliminating 127 square feet of the residence, and reconfiguring and reducing the overall grading by approximately 772 cubic yards. She explained that staff had been concerned with the excessive grading and the applicant has reduced the grading by six inches in the rear yard for the cut and about a foot for the fill. She stated the Planning Commission had also asked that the applicant give an opinion on what it would take to make the house go down even farther. The applicant estimated it would take another 3,000 cubic yards to make this home go down even farther, and staff felt this would be excessive grading for the home. She stated staff was requesting the Planning Commission consider the information before them and determine whether or not it meets their concerns. If the Commission's concerns have been met staff was recommending approval of the project, and requesting the Commission direct staff to return to the Commission with a Resolution of approval. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained how he was able to cut the grading and how he was able to shift the house. He noted that he pulled the house in at the rear because of the south neighbor and his privacy. He pointed out the new multiple levels in the rear yard to help reduce grading. He stated he planned to do quite a bit of mature landscaping on the property, keeping in mind the height restrictions in place, as well as a lot of green open space. Qommissioner Tomblin stated he previously had concerns in regards to trying to maintain low hedge and fence heights, and asked the proposed wall height closest to "' Palos Verdes Drive West. Mr. Tomaro answered that there is an existing wrought iron fence adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West that will remain in place. Ravi Khosla (owner) stated he is available for any questions. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Page2 Attachments 3-214 Jason Sikola stated he lives across the street from the proposed residence and was opposed to the structure proposed on the property. He explained that he has looked at the Municipal Code and found section 17 .02.030, which he felt opposes what the staff is presenting. He discussed what he felt was the immediate neighborhood, and did not think staff should have used the entire zone as the immediate neighborhood. He described the original house that was on the applicant's property, noting it was much smaller and farther down on the slope. He very much objected to and was concerned with the size of the residence, which he felt was in violation of the style, bulk, and mass of the immediate neighborhood. Louis Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated that the City is set up with different size lots and different size homes, and there is a wide variety of homes throughout the City. He noted that this is a large lot and can handle a larger home. He noted that while there may have been a smaller home on the lot many years ago, recently the lot has been vacant and this afforded the neighbor across the street a view. However, the property owner has a right to develop his property and this is within the guidelines allowed by the City. Jason Buck stated he lives on Via Lorado. He understood the property owner's wishes to build on his property, but was concerned about the size and height and wondered if it could be lowered any further. He noted that the homes at Oceanfront are large, however they are not visible from Palos Verdes Drive West. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated he was not aware of any view impairments from Mr. Buck's property on Via Lorado. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to clarify the definition of hillside lot, as he felt most of this lot is flat except for the downsloping area near the rear of the property. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that hillside lots are defined as not having a pad that is less than five percent slope. When moving across this property from front to back, the property maintains well over five percent slope, and at no point is there less than five percent. Commissioner Gerstner moved to direct staff to present a Resolution at the next meeting approving the house as currently designed, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Tetreault discussed the neighborhood compatibility requirements, and felt confident that the current home meets the City's neighborhood compatibility requirements. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Page3 Attachments 3-215 The motion to approve the project as currently proposed, with a Resolution to be presented on the next Consent Calendar was approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Update -Passive and Active Recreational designations Deputy Community Development Pfost presented the staff report, beginnin background information regarding the General Plan and how the active passive recreational land use designations were created. He noted that tonig what is of interest under the recreational section is the active and passive rec ational designations, which are the park sites within the City. He noted w the General Plan defines active and passive recreation and discusses various rk sites within the General Plan text and assigned an active or passive desig tion to them. He explained that as part of the General Plan update, staff looked at t active and passive park designations in the existing General Plan and looked whether or not they made sense in regards to where the active and passive designaf ns for those parks were. He noted that staff found some confusion with existing par and some parks actually fell into both active and passive designations. In additi , since 1975 the City has added quite a few more parks, which are not addressed i the General Plan. He stated that staff believes·there are three issues that should e discussed by the Planning Commission: 1) should the specific active and passive . esignations remain: 2) If they do remain, should the definitions be revised to pro 1de more clarity; and 3) If the designations remain then what designation shoul e assigned to each park in the City. He explained that staff felt a good sol on to remedying the details of what active and passive should be may be to rev· e the Development Code and propose the Development Code include an ctive and a Passive Recreation zoning district, noting that the Zoning Code curren has only one district implementing the active and passive recreation which is called en Space Recreation. Staff felt that if a Development Code amendment is do after the General Plan is adopted, by including both active and passive zoning di icts, staff can then use each of these zoning districts to more specifically state ex ly the uses and developments permitted in each designation. He added that by doin a Development Code amendment it might address the concerns expressed by so e residents of the city moving forward with park changes without getting public mment on those park changes. He displayed a table noting the parks in the City w ere no changes were proposed to the General Plan Land Use Map designatio . He also displayed a table showing parks where clarification was needed and/or c nges were being proposed to the park site. He explained staff's four-part recom endation to the Planning Commission, as written in the staff report. He noted that arolynn Petru, the Deputy City Manager and the interim Recreation and Parks Dir ctor was also present for any questions or clarifications the Planning Commission y have. Vice Chairman Emenhiser recalled the discussions regarding the planning process for Grandview and Hesse Parks, and the inclusion of active and passive elements foreseen Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2012 Page4 Attachments 3-216 P.C. Staff Report (August 14, 2012) Attachments 3-217 RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF COMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT ''·· TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMIS~N COMMUNITY DEVELO E T DIRECTOR AUGUST 14, 2012 COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST TOMARO ARCHITECTURE 2617 N. SEPULVEDA BLVD. MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90216 LANDOWNER: RAVI KHOSLA COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANN R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ STAFF LEZA MIKHAIL @ REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 10,509 SQUARE FOOT, TWO.STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,027 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 43,484 SQUARE FOOT DOWNSLOPING VACANT LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 3,680 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 298 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND FOUR (4) ASSOCIATED RETAINING WALLS. RECOMMENDATION: OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT TO REDUCE THE OVERALL RIDGELINE OF THE RESIDENCE TO 275.75' AND REAR YARD GRADING, AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2012. REFERENCES: ZONING: LAND USE: CODE SECTIONS: GENERAL PLAN: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-RS-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 17.02, 17.48, 17.72, & 17.76 RESIDENTIAL~ 1 DU/ACRE Attachments 3-218 c;j';·;;=·r; EI~:··:) PLANNING COMMISSION~S'f')\FF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-00'f4'1) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE2 TRAILS PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN: CEQA: ACTION DEADLINE: CHRISTMAS TREE COVE SEGMENT (CATEGORY Ill) COASTAL (SUBREGION 1) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE BACKGROUND In January 1999, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 437, Coastal Permit No. 148 and Grading Permit No. 2051, thereby approving a 9,697 square foot single- story residence with a maximum ridgeline of 275.75', and 354 cubic yards of grading. The project was revised from the originally designed 16,082 square foot residence with a maximum ridgeline of 281.33' and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. The approved residence was never constructed. On April 24, 2012, the applicant submitted a Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a two-story residence on a downs loping, vacant lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. On May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The applicant submitted revisions on June 18, 2012 and June 28, 2012. After a site inspection of the silhouette, Staff deemed the application complete on July 9, 2012. On July 9, 2012, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 12, 2012. Staff received two (2) comment letters (attached) in support of the proposed project from the property owners located at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West and 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject lot is a 43,546 square foot vacant lot located on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the Lunada .Pointe community, in the RS-1 zoning district. The lot was created prior to the City's incorporation and is considered a downsloping lot which allows a residence to be constructed within a 16'/30' building height envelope "by-right." The site is surrounded by existing single-family residences to the east, west and south, and an open space common area owned and maintained by the Lunada Pointe community. Attachments 3-219 GW''.:'.'> ~:_''\::; PLANNING COMMISSION"S'fAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-00f4i1) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,509 square foot two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, new pool and other minor ancillary improvements throughout the property. The new residence would be located on a downsloping, vacant lot and would maintain all required setbacks for City created lots. When combined, the footprint of the new residence and garage (8, 137 square feet), covered entry (100 square feet), and driveway/parking area (2,616 square feet) would yield a total lot coverage of 10,853 square feet, or 24.9% of the 43,546 square foot lot. Given the fact that the property is a downsloping lot, the applicant is permitted to construct a home within a 16'/30' building height envelope. As designed, the residence will have a maximum height of 24'-6%", as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elev. 252.86') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 277.45.'), and 14'-5%", as measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street (avg. elev. 263.0') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 277.45'). As required by the Development Code, the proposed residence has provided an 8-foot step within the footprint of the residence, between the first floor level and the second floor level. The project proposes 3,978 cubic yards of grading (3,680 cubic yards of cut and 298 cubic yards of fill). Specifically, 1,531 cubic yards of excavation is proposed beneath the residence. The remaining excavation (2, 149 cubic yards) and fill (298 cubic yards) is proposed throughout the remaining portions of the property to accommodate a new driveway, and level front and rear yard areas. The grading would also accommodate a 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard and walkways to access the residence, and a 5' -0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. Table 1: Project Statistics: Lot Size 20,000 s.f. 43,546 No chance Structure Size NIA vacant 11,536 s.f. Setbacks Front: 111 floor 20'-0" NIA 42'-0" Side (north) 5'-0" NIA 25'-0" to residence Side (south) 5'-0" NIA 10'-9" Rear 15'-0" NIA 92'-0" Lot Coverage(%) 25% NIA 24.9% Attachments 3-220 cn1;·:;; c: ... , PLANNING COMMISSION .. 'STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-001.41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE4 ·.·.•: "·'·· :·:····· :.-·: ..... '. :: . 1.eRi,tatA . ,- · · .;GODE . '"EXlStiNG ,. ~~lQ~Nte:WlTH · ,~~QlJIR~J;NJ" {'.fti$Jb~Nd~ .· . . ~PPlTIQN Csauare feet) Enclosed Parking Outdoor Parkino Structure Height Average elevation of the front yard setback line to the highest ridoeline. Lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab. (10,886.5 s.f.) {10,853 s.f.) 3 spaces NIA 4 spaces 3 spaces NIA 3+ spaces 16' NIA 14'-5%" 30' NIA 24'-6%" CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS Site Plan Review As described in Table 1 under the Project Description section of this report, Staff has determined that the proposed 10,509 square foot new residence, 1,027 square foot garage, pool/spa and other ancillary improvements within the rear yard (trellis, firepit, BBQ, covered entry structure) would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zone. Specifically, the new residence has been designed to provide larger setbacks that far-exceed the minimum required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setback. Further, the main residence would not exceed the 16'/30' "by right" building envelope and will meet the maximum allowable lot coverage of 25% (24.9% proposed). As the project meets all the required development standards for a single-family residence on a downsloping residential lot, provided the Planning Commission finds the new residence to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as discussed under Grading Criterion No. 5 below, Staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review. Grading Permit in order to approve the Grading Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that the request meets all nine criteria as set forth i.n Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. These criteria are listed below in bold type, with staffs analysis of each criterion in normal type. 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code. Attachments 3-221 r'.:77> ('·-... PLANNING COMMISSIO~is'fiAFF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2012-0o1'41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGES Municipal Code Section No. 17.96 defines the permitted primary use in the RS-1 zone as single-family residential. Staff believes that the proposed grading related to the construction of the residence is necessary to accommodate the proposed residence on the vacant lot in the most ideal location to minimize impacts to adjacent neighbors to the south (3400 Palos Verdes Drive West) and directly across the street (3333 Palos Verdes Drive West). The applicant explored different designs and locations of the proposed residence by working with neighbors. The proposed location of the home was the most desired as it would avoid potential view impacts from the neighbor located to the south and would appear as a single-story residence from the street. As a result, a considerable amount of grading is being proposed because the residence will be sited closer to the street where the slope of the lot is steeper and adequate driveway access will be required. A total of 2,344 cubic yards of grading is necessary to accommodate the residence at its proposed location and vehicular access to the garage. More specifically, the applicant is excavating 1,531 cubic yards beneath the entirety of the new residence to lower the finished floor area of the residence and provide the required 8-foot step on downsloping homes. Outside of the residence footprint, but related to the construction of the residence, 813 cubic yards of grading (cut and fill) is necessary for the construction of a driveway. In addition to the construction related to the development of the residence, 1,618 cubic yards of grading is proposed for the construction of flat front and rear yard areas. Given that the grading proposed within the front yard is minimal (168 cubic yards), Staff is able to support the front yard grading. However, Staff is unable to support the 1,450 cubic yards of grading proposed to create an extensive level rear yard area. Although it appears that a majority of the nearby lots utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable rear yard area, Staff believes that given the size of the proposed level yard area, the quantity of grading needed to create the rear yard is excessive and not necessary for the primary use of the lot. Staff discussed this concern with the applicant who noted that they would be amendable to redesigning the landscaping in the rear yard to limit the quantity of grading outside of the construction of the home. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot for the construction of the residence, but that the grading within the rear yard is excessive and should be reduced. As such, as currently designed, this criterion can be met. ,., 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8), is lower than a structure that Attachments 3-222 (''''.·:?\,. ('':'';e .. , PLANNING COMMISSIOt·{~tAFF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2012-001~H') AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE6 could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre- construction (existing grade). A total of four (4) retaining walls are proposed around the property. Three (3) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A fourth retaining wall will be 4'-6" in height at the rear of the property. Although Staff would consider the height of the retaining walls to be minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall residences within the Lunada Point community. The Development Code requires the height of a downsloping lot to be 16'-0" as measured from the average elevation of the setback line. The average elevation of the setback line is 263.0'. This would allow a residence to be constructed "by-right" with a ridgeline of 279.0'. The applicant is proposing to lower a majority of the finished grade beneath the residence, thereby resulting in a home that is 14'-5%" tall with a maximum ridgeline of 277.45'. As such, the height of the residence will be slightly lower than the height of a similar residence that could have been built "by- right" in the same location. Thus, this criterion can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The majority of the applicant's requested grading is for excavation to accommodate the new residence, driveway and useable rear yard area. The applicant is also proposing to construct four retaining walls: 1) a 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, 2) a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, 3) a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard, and 4) a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence and vehicular access. Outside of the grading required for the construction of the residence, the contours of the driveway, front yard and rear yard will generally follow the existing contours found on the property. More specifically, the majority of the driveway will be graded to follow the existing contours with the exception of the last 1/3 of the driveway providing access to the garage. The majority of the rear yard has a slight slope. In order to create a flat yard area, the applicant is proposing to grade the rear yard whereby the proposed retaining walls will generally follow the existing contours with the exception of a small ··· area north and south of the pool where a small 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall is proposed. Although Staff does not have a ·concern with the height of the proposed retaining walls as the majority of the naturally sloping rear yard area would be graded to be level, Staff believes that this finding cannot be made for the entirety of the proposed grading. As such, this criterion cannot be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservatiQn of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. Attachments 3-223 crrrn> QE"''"- PLANNING COMMISSION''S'fAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-00f~1) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE7 As noted previously, the majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. Four (4) retaining walls are proposed around all sides of the residence and yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the riew driveway and slope surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. As such, Staff feels that this criterion has been met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. Municipal Code Section 17.02.030(B)(1)(a) requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis whenever a new residence is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot. As such, a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was completed. The Municipal Code defines neighborhood character to include: a) the scale of surrounding residences, b) architectural styles and materials of the surrounding area, and c) the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.02.040(A)(6), "neighborhood character" is defined as encompassing the following three project characteristics (RPVDC language is boldface, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type): a. Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the twenty (20) nearest properties. The table below summarizes the properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood, which serve as the basis for the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility and Analysis Matrix 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West 44,188 5,005* 1 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West 48,684 12,819* 2 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West 43,760 3,654 1 30335 Palos Verdes Drive West 46,448 6,653 2 6 Mar uerite Drive 50,565 11,318 2 7 Mar; uerite Drive 87,126 8,760 2 Attachments 3-224 CC'';:·,.\; (t··\ PLANNING COMMISSION'.'SYAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGES 24 Marauerite Drive 41,353 8,853* 57 Marguerite Drive 43,899 5,350 63 Marguerite Drive 43,642 8,478 67 Marguerite Drive 43,658 7,364 71 Marguerite Drive 55080 6936 75 Marguerite Drive 58,185 6678 79 Marguerite Drive 50,310 7,039 83 Marguerite Drive 46,664 7,097* 73 Laurel Drive 26,981 7,100 77 Laurel Drive 22207 10,360 85 Laurel Drive 21456 9,100 89 Laurel Drive 20613 7,826 93 Laurel Drive 20,395 5,624 97 Laurel Drive 29,557 7,664 Average 42,238 7,494 3344 Palos Existing 0 Verdes Drive Proposed 43,546 11,536 West 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 vacant 2 *The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no infonnation available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department. A 360 square foot garage was assigned to residences under 5,000 square feet In livable area and a 540 square foot garage was assigned to residences above 5,000 square feet In livable area. As noted in the table above, the homes in the neighborhood range in size from 3,654 square feet to 12,819 square feet, with the average home size being 7,494 square feet (habitable plus non-habitable square footage). While the square footage of the proposed new residence is considerably larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence (11,536 square feet) will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). Therefore, although large, Staff is of the opinion that the new residence is within the range of neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the character, style and setting of the neighborhood. b. Architectural styles, including facade treabnents, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials. The bulk and mass of the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side Marguerite Drive. As such, the orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the architectural styles of homes found in the immediate neighborhood, especially along Marguerite ... Attachments 3-225 (c:s:·'=;:=:: c·= .... PLANNING COMMISSION··sJAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-001'~1) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE9 Drive, are eclectic. Although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, Staff feels the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. For example, the applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fac;ade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents in order to break up the appearance of the bulk and mass of the new structure. More specifically, The residence was designed with multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, decorative clay tiles and first and second story accent molding. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. c. Front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. As noted above, the proposed residence will provide large setbacks from the front, sides and rear property lines and would therefore maintain the integrity of setbacks observed throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that the construction of a new 10,509 square foot residence with a 1,027 square foot garage would produce a residence that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. This proposal is not a new residential tract; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements, therefore, this criterion does not apply. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the ,., natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. Natural landscape is usually considered wild flowers, low coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands. Based on the City's NCCP vegetation maps, there is no evidence of natural landscape or sensitive wildlife habitat on the subject property, which is a developed lot in a single-family residential neighborhood. As such, the proposed project would not result in excessive or unnecessary removal of sensitive vegetation. Attachments 3-226 ~:.-~:'.{:~:'.!::: .. {;::; ~_.:::-::::.:.:. PLANNING COMMISSIOt·i'SfAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-oo1~a1) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE10 9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdived lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard. With the exception of a small portion of grading associated with the new driveway, a majority of the grading will not be conducted on an extreme slope. The subject property was legally subdivided prior to November 25, 1975. As such, the proposed grading (cut and fill) is permitted and meets this criterion. Finished slope contours The Municipal Code limits the contours of finished slopes to no greater than 35%. The proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot. No finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. As such, the proposal meets this standard. Cut or fill on a slope exceeds 50% The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. As such, this grading criterion can be met. Excavation exceeding a depth of 5 feet The code states that an excavation shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet except where the Planning Commission determines that certain circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. A majority of the proposed grading outside of the structure footprint will not exceed a depth of 5 feet. The construction of the residence, however and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-10%' in order to accommodate the residence. If the applicant did not provide an 8-foot step in the design of the downslope residence, the applicant would be required to apply for a Variance to deviate from the development code requirement to provide an 8-foot step in the design of the "' residence. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed excavation that exceeds 5 feet in depth is reasonable, necessary arid the best alternative for the construction of a new home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and this grading criterion can be met. Height of retaining walls The Development Code allows one upslope retaining wall not to exceed 8'-0" in height to be located outside of any front and/or street side setback area and one 3'- Attachments 3-227 "'<" (''··:·>·. tf:?;;;;t;];}; '<.:~.·~::·: :. ·:;;;:' PLANNING COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-001'.4'1) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE11 6" tall downslope retaining wall anywhere on the property. Additionally, the code allows one downslope/upslope retaining wall, not to exceed a maximum height of 5'- 0", to be located adjacent to a driveway. The project proposal includes one 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard and walkways to access the residence, and a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. The project meets this criterion for the retaining wall located adjacent to the driveway and the 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located in the side yard. The 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall located within the rear yard exceeds the code-allowed height of 3'-6" and therefore does not meet the code criterion for downsloping retaining walls. In addition the grading criterion cannot be met for the second upslope retaining wall that is 3'-6" tall as the code only allows one (1) upslope retaining wall. As noted above, the applicant is proposing two retaining walls that exceed the grading criterion for residential lots. However, the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a Grading Pennit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following four findings can be adopted: a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) have been met As noted in the discussion above, Staff's opinion is that all eight criteria are being met; therefore, staff feels that this finding can be adopted. b) The second finding is that the request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan." By allowing the deviations in the grading standards, the applicant is able to provide a downslope retaining wall in the rear yard to support the proposed pool and rear yard area. A majority of the retaining wall will meet the grading criterion for a 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall, with the exception of one small area north of the proposed pool which will be 4'-6" in height Although a majority of the proposed retaining wall will be consistent with the Development Code, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to plant and maintain small shrubs in front of the retaining wall to adequately screen the visibility of the downsloping retaining wall. In addition, allowing deviations in the grading standards allows the applicant to construct a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate a small, level courtyard at the front of house. Some of the other properties in the Attachments 3-228 _,;., ... ,,,,~,,,.. r., ... · ....... . ( :: :: \. . ··,., PLANNING COMMISSION's'fAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-0CH41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE12 neighborhood also exhibit short retaining walls to support planting areas, courtyards and useable fronVrear yards while supporting the slopes that exist behind them. Further, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the new retaining wall would not be easily seen from the public right- of-way or neighboring properties. As such, Staff believes this finding can be adopted. c) The third finding is that approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is inundated with hillside properties that grade to utilize retaining walls that support slopes and planting areas. The subject property is a hillside property with a gentle slope that descends from the public right-of-way to the rear yard. With the exception of the new driveway, the. applicant has limited the grading and retaining walls to areas on the property that do not have an extreme slope (35% or greater). As retaining walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood, and the proposed retaining walls that deviate from the grading criterion will support the construction of a new residence and useable yard areas, Staff feels this finding can be adopted. d) The final finding is that departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a preliminary soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls. The applicant will be required to obtain final approval of the soil engineering report prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, will be required that the structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code. These aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the grading standards. Further, deviation from the standards would allow the property owner the ability to stabilize the property surrounding the new residence. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the structural aspect of the structure and the retaining walls. With these provisions the proposed deviations will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project; therefore Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the Planning Commission approved the proposed project and deviations from the grading standards, Staff will be sending a copy of the Notice of Decision and associated Resolution to the following property owners: 1) Stiassni Family I 3400 ... ·· Attachments 3-229 e~,,~~ ,.,,. .. " .. '"· t:r\:; C< . PLANNING COMMISSION'$fAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-0iPl'41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE13 Palos Verdes Drive West, 2) Marcel & Irma Bont I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West, and 3) Lunada Point HOA/ 60 Laurel Ave. Ultimately, all four findings can be made and the proposed project, which is in excess of that normally permissible under subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, can be approved. Coastal Permit The subject property is located within the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project does not meet the established criteria to be exempt from obtaining a Coastal Permit; thus, a permit is required. In considering a Coastal Permit application, Section 17.72.090 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission make two findings (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type): 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the coastal specific plan. The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which contains Policy No. 8 (pg. S1-11) that "[requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicanf s plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant's lot, is at an average elevation of 268.0'. For purposes of implementing the Coastal Specific Plan, Staff has determined the "viewing station" to be the eye level of a pedestrian standing on the area adjacent to PVDW which has an average grade elevation of 268.0'. This happens to be the location of the City's Coastal Trail which is discussed in more detail under "Additional Information." Assuming the average eye level is approximately 5 feet above the 268.0' grade elevation, the horizontal plane that is to be used to calculate the 2° down-arc is at an elevation of 273.0'. When calculating the 2° down-arc from the viewing station, the 2° down-arc drops approximately 2'-0" for every 50'-0" as one gets closer to the proposed residence. The ridgeline of the residence, as currently proposed, is approximately 118'- 0" from the viewing station. At the proposed residence's current location, the 2° down- arc would be 4.3' below the 273.0' horizontal plane. This would limit the residence to a ridgeline elevation of 268. 75', which would be 9" above the curb level. The new residence is proposed to have a ridgeline elevation of 277.45', which is above the horizontal plane and down-arc from the viewing level along Palos Verdes Drive West. Thus, the proposed project would not comply with the 2° down-arc guideline of the Coastal Specific Plan. Attachments 3-230 PLANNING COMMISS10Jt~IFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2012-0(;~;~) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE14 It is important note, the Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) "require[s] development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... " As noted in the grading analysis, the applicant has been working with neighbors when designing the home and its location and orientation on the existing lot. In reviewing the previous approval on the subject property in 1999, Staff found that the Planning Commission previously approved the maximum ridgeline elevation of the then proposed residence at a maximum 275.75' elevation. Although this elevation would still result in a building over the 2° down-arc guideline of the Coastal Specific Plan, the Planning Commission felt in 1999 that a residence at the 275. 75' maximum ridgeline would reduce the intrusion into the ocean and Catalina views that are observed from Palos Verdes Drive West. Considering this previous Planning Commission determination, Staff would recommend that the applicant slightly redesign the ridgeline of the project to be no higher than 275.75' elevation. Staff believes that directing the applicant to lower the ridgeline to meet the 268.75' elevation dictated by the Coastal Specific Plan guideline would either increase the grading, which Staff believes is already excessive, or move the house to be lower on the lot which could create impacts to the neighbors which the current design seeks to avoid. This concern has been discussed with the applicant and they are amenable to redesigning the ridgeline of the residence to be more in line with the ridgeline that was previously approved. 2. That the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to this project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis: As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. After conducting a foliage analysis of the subject project, Staff found that there are no trees are located on the subject property that would impair ... a view from the viewing area of another property. Environmental Analysis: Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)(new construction; single-family residence) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the construction of a 10,509 square foot single-family residence and 1,027 square foot garage in a residential Attachments 3-231 ,<51> ,(''''":\ PLANNING COMMISSION·l$i~iAFF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2012-0h·it41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE15 zone. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. Conceptual Trails Plan: The subject property is located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West. According to the City's Conceptual Trails Plan, a portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail is located within the adjoining right-of-way of Palos Verdes Drive West. The portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail that is located in front of the subject property is referred to as the Christmas Tree Cove Segment. The specific course trail segment begins on Palos Verdes Drive West at the City's border with Palos Verdes Estates and continues on the western side of the road to a point just north of the southern boundary of the Lunada Point development. This trail is designated for pedestrian/equestrian use and falls under Category Ill of the City's Conceptual Trail Plan, meaning the trail is located within the City's PVDW right-of-way. The Conceptual Trail Plan indicates that implementation of this trail segment should be funded with grants or by outside agencies. Coincidently, completion of this trail segment is currently being pursued as part of a recent grant funded by the State of California for completion of the City's Coastal Trail. It is anticipated that the future trail in this area will consist of a decomposed granite trail that will include parkway improvements and signage. As such, the applicant will be prevented from constructing any improvements in the public right-of-way other than the driveway approach, which is a requirement imposed by the Public Works Department. A condition of approval to this affect has been included in the attached Resolution. Overlay Control Districts: The subject property is listed in the Natural Overlay Control District {OC-1), Socio- cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) and Urban appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) as outlined in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Overlay control districts provide criterion which further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by the proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the City. These areas have been defined by the general plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique characteristics contributing to the city's form, appearance, natural setting, and historical and cultural heritage. Staff reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the performance criterion listed in Chapter 17.40 and found that the project complies with all related criterion in the Natural Overlay Control District and Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District, but does not comply with the Urban Appearance "' Overlay Control District as summarized by bullet points below: Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) • The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property. • The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES Attachments 3-232 <<"~;;:'.::> ( .. ,,., .. _: PLANNING COMMISSION ... sTAFF REPORT -{CASE NO. ZON2012-00llH) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE16 approval, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) • The subject property was not listed in the City's records to have any significant historical, archaeological or cultural importance and is zoned for residential use. Urban Overlay Control District (OC-3) • For the reasons discussed throughout the analysis of the Grading Permit, the project is located on a legal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home within a 16'-30' building height envelope. However, due to the fact that the project is located within the Coastal Zone, although it is not located within a view corridor, the residences should be designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from the established viewing station (i.e. eye level from the exiting trail). As discussed in the Coastal Permit section of this report, the project as currently designed does not mitigate impacts of views as seen from the viewing station. As such, the height of the project will not preserve, protect or enhance the visual character of the city as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West as currently designed. Public Notice: As a result of the public notice, Staff received the attached correspondence from the property owner located next door, at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West and across the street at 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West. Both property owners are in support of the proposed project due to the fact that the design does not exceed the height limitation of the Development Code. The property owner at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West noted that they agree with the design of the project and welcome the new construction provided they can be assured that the construction will not damage their retaining wall, pool, pool deck and home office as a result. In speaking with the home owner at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West, the home owner was pleased to hear that the construction of the residence and associated grading would be required to obtain final geology approval, structural review and hydrology approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Permit Streamlining Act: The deadline for the Permit Streamlining Act expires on September 7, 2012. If the Planning Commission agrees to continue the project to September 11, 2012, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission will need to request an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act from the applicant for a maximum of ninety (90) days. This would create a new Permit Streamlining Act deadline of December 6, 2012. Attachments 3-233 PLANNING COMMISSION~~'~FF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2012j~l~.f~ AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE17 CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, as currently designed, Staff is not able to make the required findings to approve the Grading Permit or Coastal Permit. More specifically, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the grading associated with the development of the rear yard area and reduce the overall ridgeline of the residence to 275. 75', which is the elevation of the ridgeline previously approved by the Planning Commission. As such, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the proposed project and continue the project to a date certain to allow the applicant time to redesign the residence. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Approved the project as currently designed and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. 3. Deny, without prejudice, the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. ATTACHMENTS • Correspondence Letters • Project Plans Attachments 3-234 Correspondence Letter( s) Attachments 3-235 ,. 3344 Palos Verdes Drive, WesL ... ,. ~,_:;J_.:.·.J 3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West Nicholas Stiassni [NS@stlassnicapltal.com] sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:31 NVI To: Leza Mikhail July 23, 2012 Leza Mikhail City Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes The Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 To Whom It May Concern, STIASSNI 3400 PALOS VERDES DRIVE, WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 310/544-0849 ns@stiassnicapital.com Page I of I I am writing in regards to the proposed structure to be constructed at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans drawn up by Tomaro Design Group. We welcome the Khosla family to what has been a magical location for our family. We approve the plans and have no suggestions for any revisions. The one concern that we have which has been expressed to Ravi Khosla is the possibility of damage to our retaining wall, pool, pool deck, and home office because of the amount of earth required to be removed. Ravi has assured me that this will not be a problem. I trust him but need to voice this concern and would like to receive a structural report with assurances that my property will not be compromised. We look forward to your response. We also look forward to working with the Khosla family to make their transition to Rancho Palos Verdes a pleasant one. Sincerely, Nick & Suzie Stiassni Cc: Ravi Khosla https://owa.rpv .com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZVCQSq UvcjOG... 7/2412012 Attachments 3-236 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Louie Tomaro [louiet@tomaro.com] Friday, July 27, 2012 9:28 AM Leza Mikhail FW: [FWD: Re: Your Neighbour@3344 P.V Drive]--FYI Importance: High Leza Hope the summer is going well so far Not sure if these emails can be added to the staff report or not for the project at 3344 PV DR W We have been communicating with many of the neighbors to provide support for the project This is an email communication to show support from one of the neighbors Please let me know if these should be sent in to you Thanks Have a good weekend Louie Tomaro, AIA, LEED AP TOMARO ARCHITECTURE 2617 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 100 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 310.318.8089 x101 310.318.9400 f www.TOMARQ.com From: mail@ravik.hosla.com [mallto:mail@ravik.hosla.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:27 AM To: Louie Tomaro Subject: [FWD: Re: Your Neighbour@ 3344 P.V Drive] --FYI Importance: High hi, Received this email from the neighbour in the back Thanks Ravi Khosla Royal Concepts Incorporated SOUTAIRE -WHITE DIAMONDS-L'AFFAIRE Los Angeles : New York : Dallas: Hong Kong: New Delhi Phone:213-748-5590 Fax: 213-748-5560 Cell: 310-930-5040 > --------Orlglnal Message -------- >Subject: Re: Your Neighbour@ 3344 P.V Drive > From: Bont Irma <irma.bont@me.com> > Date: Tue, July 24, 2012 5:57 pm >To: mail@ravlkhosla.com > 7/31/2012 Page I of2 Attachments 3-237 Page 2 of2 > ·. > Hello Ravi, > > today I was at RPV City Hall to take a look at the plans for your new house and I would like to congratulate you on the remarkable design for an l(npr~sslve home. We do appreciate that fact that you are building within the height limits and see no concerns on our side. We have received a letter from the city pertaining the Augu~t 14, 2012, hearing of the planning commission and I wanted to assure you there wont be any objections on o.ur side. > > Congratulations on a great design. > >Irma Bont > '5~'33 1'VDW > > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:37 PM, mall@ravlkhosla.com wrote: > >Dear Irma, > > I hope my mall finds you and Marcel In best. As you may have noticed the >work on silhouette at our property 3344 P.V Drive Is complete. As per > your concern and keeping In mind what you had written In your last niall, > we have tried to keep the height within the guidelines· and are not · > requesting for variances. I totally agree with you concerns and would >cooperate with what ever best we can to maintain the vJew and value-of >your property. I assure you If you have any other concern regarding the > project I will address that. Please feel free to call me or ·email it to >me. > >Have a great weekend. > >Regards > > > Ravi Khosla > Royal Concepts Incorporated > SOLITAIRE -WHITE DIAMONDS-L'AFFAIRE > Los Angeles: New York : Dallas: Hong Kong: New Delhi > > Phone:213-748-5590 > Fax: 213-748-5560 ;> Cell: 310-930-5040 7/3112012 I •• ... ·" I Attachments 3-238 Late Correspondence (August 14, 2012) Attachments 3-239 RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive ~l~~t ··:.:;;~;/ RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Leza Mikhail "'--sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:08 AM To: Jason Slkola [jslkola@vahoo.mm] Hello Jason, Page 1 of2 Thank you for the apology, although It Is not necessary. I understand your frustration. It Is my understanding that Mr. Tomaro attempted to go to your residence shortly after you came in, but was unsuccessful. I didn't have any contact Information for him to contact you other than using a phone number listed with the assessor Information. Mr. Tomaro's phone number is (310) 318-8089. Ask for him and say It is regarding the Khosla residence. · I will forward your pllone number and emall to Mr. Tomaro. As for submitting a letter to the Plannlng Commission, you may still do so. I can either submit the email you sent me (below) or you can submit another one, or both. Please let me know what you would prefer. Also, the staff report Is avaUable online at http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/p!annlng/AGENDAS - current Agendas/PlannlngCommlssion/2012/2012 08 14 Planning Commission Agenda/ Oiclc on agenda Item #1 to read the staff report that I prepared. You will notice that staff Is recommending that the ridgellne height be reduced. I encourage you to contact Mr. Tomaro and attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Planning Department https://owa.rpv.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKpSzhZVCQSq UvcjOG... 8/1~012 Attachments 3-240 RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive ~'Jr ... ,·.:· 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard ~-Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.oalosverdes.com/rov/planning/index.cfm. (310) 544-5228. (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rov.com From: Jason Slkola [jslkola@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:34 PM To: Leza Mlkhan Cc: Eric Slkola Subject: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Hello Lez.a, Page 2 of2 First, I would like to apologize for being somewhat hasty the other day when we met at RPV city hall. I was running on an empty stomach and had way too strong of a coffee for our brief discussion. I would also like to thank you for offering your assistance and being quite helpful. Unfortunately, my attempts to contact the contractor, Louis Tomaro, and discuss the possibility of a ridge-line reduction have been unsuccessful and I have not received a call back. Henceforth, I would like your advice moving forward. ·-May I still submit a letter of complaint to be recognized this Tuesday night based on the info below. Ocean View Infringement of the viewing areas of property residing on 7369 Berry Hill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275 Size of house 11,ooo+ sq. ft. is far greater than the average house in nearby areas as well as property's zone. (50% greater than average) Affordability Index -Many vacant houses just south of property in question because of impractical structure sizes and unaffordable housing prices. Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance Monday Morning. Jason Sikola Cell (310) 941-7246 Work (310) 373-6326 https://owa.rpv.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZVCQSq UvcjOG... 8/l'ltaP 12 Attachments 3-241 P.C. Minutes (August 14, 2012) Attachments 3-242 1. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012- 00141 ): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining which homes in the neighborhood were used for neighborhood compatibility analysis, and pointing out that the subject lot is not a pad lot but rather a downsloping lot. She displayed a site plan of the proposed development, and explained the scope of the project. In discussing the proposed grading, she noted the proposed quantities and that staff was supportive of the 2,344 cubic yards for the residence, driveway, and a nominal amount for the flat front yard area. However, staff felt that given the extent of the rear yard area, the 1,450 cubic yards of grading is excessive and can be minimized. She also explained that the Coastal Specific Plan notes specific view corridors throughout the City and this particular property is not cited as being in one of those view corridors. She noted that the staff report discusses this topic in detail. In addition, she explained that staff also looked at the previous application that was approved in 1999 where the project was ultimately approved with a ridgeline elevation 275.75. This particular application is proposed at 277.75 and staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the ridgeline to be consistent with what was reviewed and approved in 1999. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to explain why an eight foot step is required on this property, as discussed in the staff report. Director Rojas explained that there are different ways to measure height on pads and slope lots. The idea in regards to the eight foot step is to try to minimize grading by setting a split-level house into the slope. Commissioner Tomblin noted a two bedroom guest quarters on the site plan, and asked staff how there was a possibility it would be used as a dwelling unit. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff discussed this issue with the applicant, and the applicant stated it would not be utilized as a second unit. The applicant will be required to file a covenant that the area cannot be used as a second dwelling unit unless future Planning Department review and approvals are obtained. Commissioner Tomblin asked how staff would enforce the covenant. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that if staff were notified that the guest quarters " were being used as a second unit, code enforcement staff would investigate. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there will be restrictions on future planting on the site, taking into consideration the many view restoration and/or preservation cases that have occurred in the Berry Hill neighborhood. He referenced the Oceanfront Estates landscaping with shrubs and lower vegetation. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 2 Attachments 3-243 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that landscaping had not been considered in terms of the Oceanfront Estates landscaping, which was developed as a tract. However, that does not mean conditions cannot be added that will restrict what is allowed to be planted and how high that vegetation can grow. Chairman Tetreault discussed the Coastal Specific Plan and the two degree down-arc guideline, and understood the proposed residence does comply with the 16 I 30 by-right building envelope. He stated that if this is a guideline, and the applicant has proposed less than a 16/30 by-right ridgeline, he questioned upon what basis the Commission has to impose a lower ridgeline. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that, given this is a discretionary permit, and Coastal Permit finding No. 1 allows the Commission that discretion. Chairman Tetreault asked if staff has done any analysis on the difference between the ridge height the applicant is proposing at 277.75 versus staff's recommended height of 275.5, and what impact that would have upon anyone using the viewing station and how that would open up views. Director Rojas answered that no such analysis has been done other than what the Commission has before them in terms of pictures and silhouettes. He reminded the Commission that the proposed residence is not in a view corridor. In this case the Coastal Specific Plan gives a guideline that may be used to try to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive West. He noted that in regards to the homes built on Palos Verdes Drive West, City Councils and Planning Commissions in the past have made numerous interpretations of the guidelines and there is. complete discretion on how the Commission wants to apply this guideline. Chairman Tetreault asked, when the former applicant was granted an approval in 1999, if there is any record of an analysis done by either staff or the Commission as to how it was utilizing its discretion to allow the home at that height versus the two percent down arc calculation that would have been several feet below that. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the record does not reveal too much detail other than the Planning Commission at that time felt that lowering the ridge line would help protect views. Chairman Tetreault asked if there is any type of cumulative view impact analysis that should be taken into account with the development of this property. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that this project does not involve a height variation application and therefore does not have a cumulative view analysis as part of any of the applications. Director Rojas explained that in reviewing the records of previous decisions it appears that the decision makers have attempted to reconcile what is a very strict guideline of Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 3 Attachments 3-244 getting a house below the grade with the reality that to do so would require an immense amount of grading and hardship. Commissioner Leon asked if the adjacent property has a single-story house built on it. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was correct. Commissioner Leon asked if that lot had been graded down to create the building pad. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff had looked at the lot to the south and found no grading application in the file. She also could not confirm the topography of the adjacent lot, however it appears to be a flat lot on the city's aerial photos. Commissioner Leon asked if the two large houses to the north of the subject lot were built with Variance applications. Associate Planner Mikhail recalled the houses were built with the approval of a Coastal Permit and a Height Variation, and a cumulative view analysis at that time took into consideration the construction of a 16 foot tall home at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. She added that for that residence there was a considerable amount of grading that was also approved. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that currently, when driving on Palos Verdes Drive West, there is no view of the ocean along this stretch of road until one reaches Oceanfront Estates. He felt that, in essence, when the Planning Commission is getting concerned about the view from the subject property and maintaining an ocean view, in fact there is no view from several areas along that stretch of Palos Verdes Drive West. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained that a key point that has not been mentioned is that this lot had a home on it at one time, which was demolished after the 1999 City approval for a new house. Therefore views were already impaired by this original house and its landscaping. He pointed out on this new submittal the setbacks are larger than what is required by the Code, and he felt the owners have reached out to many of the neighbors when designing this house. He noted that locating the house closer to the street benefits the neighbor to the south in terms of his views and privacy. He noted that the driveway has been located underneath the house so that it won't be seen from Palos Verdes Drive West, however in doing so it creates extra grading for the driveway. He noted that when driving south on Palos Verdes Drive West there is a view and by keeping the house closer to the street one will be able to see quite a bit more of the ocean for a longer length. He stated the second unit on the property is intended for the owner's parents to have their own private unit and entry and is not intended as a rental unit. In regards to the size of the building, he pointed out that this is a single story structure unlike the larger two-story homes adjacent to the property and much of the structure is subterranean. Planning Commission Minutes August14,2012 Page4 Attachments 3-245 Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Tomaro if he can lower the house by two feet. Mr. Tomaro felt it would be difficult, as it would cause additional grading if he were to keep the ceiling heights as they are currently proposed. Commissioner Tomblin as.ked Mr. Tomaro if he has had any discussions or would be willing to have discussions with the neighbors in the tract above in regards to foliage and landscaping. Mr. Tomaro explained he has already met with one neighbor across the street in terms of the foliage and landscaping and would be willing to work with other neighbors. Vice Chairman Emenhiser explained his concern that there are really two constituencies to consider, the immediate neighborhood and the citizens of the City who will drive on Palos Verdes Drive West past this home and wonder what happened to their view. He noted the staff report suggests the applicant will be amenable to changes, however Mr. Tomaro has stated it will be difficult to lower the home by two feet. He asked Mr. Tomaro to clarify his position on being able to lower the structure. Mr. Tomaro explained that the coastal view issue came up late in the game and he is trying to find ways to work ways with staff on this issue. In order to lower the house, because it is on a slope, he will have to push the house back. This may start to affect the neighbor to the south as well as those driving south on Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt he would have to lower the building ten feet in order to see over it from the street. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. Tomaro if he could lower the ceiling heights or the pitch of the roof to help lower the height of the house. Mr. Tomaro answered the pitch of the roof is 3 % :12 and it could be lowered to pick up a few inches. Chairman Tetreault noted staff's recommendations on the grading quantity in the rear yard, and asked Mr. Tomaro if he has given any consideration to the grading in the rear yard. Mr. Tomaro felt that creating several layers in the rear yard will help absorb some of the "' grading in the rear yard, and felt confident that he can work with staff to come to a solution. Jason Sikola stated he resides across the street from the proposed residence, and felt the proposed residence will take away his island and sunset views. He was also concerned with where the City is going with these massive houses that are being built. He felt this home is a bit excessive and was against the proposed structure. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Page5 Attachments 3-246 Raju Chhabria stated he is the realtor who sold the property to the applicant. He clarified that the LaBarba house next door at 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West is 13,500 square feet on one acre of land. Similarly, the subject property is approximately one acre of land. He noted that the applicant has made the offer to maintain the open space area next to Lunada Pointe and the association is in favor of this offer. Farahd Ehtessabia stated he owns the property to the south of the subject property. He stated that he has been driving Palos Verdes Drive for many years and does not think there is much of an ocean view on any section of the road when driving towards Hawthorne Boulevard. When driving in the other direction towards Palos Verdes Estates, he felt that if a driver really stretches he can get a bit of an ocean view. He stated this is a large lot and the owner paid quite a bit of money for the lot, and should be allowed to build a larger home. He stated he was in support of the new project. Commissioner Tomblin stated he is familiar with Mr. Ehtessabia's property and asked him if he lives at the property. Mr. Ehtessabia answered that he does not live at the property, and that the two homes on the property are rentals. He stated that he will eventually demolish these homes and build a home he can move in to. Ramesh Khosla (owner) stated that he has quite a large family and this house will accommodate that large family. He felt that even though the house may have been approved at a lower height in 1999, he felt that circumstances have changed since then and he should be allowed to have a bit higher roof line. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) felt the City is set up in such a way that homes should vary and shouldn't all be the same size. He noted there are large lots across the street with large homes, and the newly developed homes are larger because of the larger lot. He also felt that if there were a house on the property currently a lot of what is being discussed would not be discussed. Because the house is gone and it is a vacant lot everything is being looked at differently, and he did not think that should impact the development of this particular lot. He stated there was a home on the lot with large landscaping, and the lot should be looked at as a site that could be developed with a single family residence that should meet the 16/30 guidelines, which he has done. Finally, he felt that the bigger impact on views and what people see in the corridors is more of a landscaping issue. He felt the impact from the mature landscaping is a huge impact, more so than the actual residences. · Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Tomaro what would happen to the interior of the home in terms of ceiling heights if the house were reduced in height by two feet. Mr. Tomaro explained he would lower the home through a combination of things, including lowering some ceiling heights and lowering the roof pitch. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Pa~e_6 Attachments 3-247 Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted that in terms of neighborhood compatibility, this will be the second largest home on an average size lot in this neighborhood. However, the Planning Commission has not had much of a discussion in terms of neighborhood compatibility and he thought there may be a general consensus that the size of the proposed home is not really an issue. However, there is a neighbor that has concerns about the size of the home and its impact to his views. He noted that the Planning Commission will be judged by what is built on this property, as it is very visible to the general public. He was therefore in favor of lowering the height of the structure, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Leon noted that the property owner by right can build a 16/30 house. While he regrets losing the view of the ocean from the street, he noted that the property owner has the right to build a house on this property. He felt that the public has been using the property owner's views for many years, and the view is really the property owner's view and by right they can build a house. He was not sure that lowering the house would impact that loss of view. He would therefore support building the house as he did not think a height reduction would serve any purpose. Commissioner Gerstner agreed. He added that if the Commission were going to ask that the house be lowered he would first like to see the beneficial impact lowering the home would have on the views. Commissioner Tomblin felt that because this is a downsloping lot, a large part of the mass of the house will be absorbed as it goes down the hill. He felt he could therefore justify the size of the house and did not have a problem with the square footage of the house. He agreed with Commissioner Gerstner that he would like to see the benefit of lowering the house two feet before asking the applicant to do so. He disagreed with staff that this is not a cumulative view issue explaining that Lunada Pointe was developed as a planned community, protecting views from Palos Verdes Drive West as much as possible. The Planning Commission at the time also went to great lengths to ensure the homes at Oceanfront Estates were developed to protect the views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. He noted this property is only two properties down from Oceanfront Estates. He felt there was precedent from the previous Commission to protect the views from Palos Verdes Drive West. He felt that staff needs to consider, and the Commission should consider, similar restrictions on the foliage at Oceanfront Estates be brought to this residence. Commissioner Nelson congratulated the architect on his design and felt this was a magnificent structure. He saw no problem with the structure as far as views from Palos Verdes Drive West being impacted. He felt this is a good plan and did not feel it was necessary to challenge the architect for an additional two feet. He preferred to discuss some solid landscaping recommendations, as discussed by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 7 Attachments 3-248 Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the Coastal Specific Plan guideline to try to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive West would have been taken into consideration if the proposed residence was on a pad lot at a proposed height of 16 feet. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the guideline would also be considered and analyzed by staff, however the Planning Commission has the discretion as to whether there is any validity in requiring the height to be lowered. Director Rojas added that staff was recommending the height of the residence be lowered, not based upon neighborhood compatibility, but rather based on the Coastal Specific Plan guidelines. He also addressed Commissioner Tomblin's comments in regards to cumulative view impacts. He explained that a cumulative view analysis is one of the findings for a height variation. However, this project did not require a height variation and therefore a cumulative view analysis was not required. This is not to say that the Planning Commission cannot look at the Coastal Specific Plan guideline in terms of cumulative views and how the project is looked at from driving down the coastline. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there has been any study of what benefit two feet would have to views when driving down Palos Verdes Drive West. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there has not been a specific study done. Director Rojas stated that staff can take the photo of property and the silhouette and calculate where the ridgeline would be if the house were lowered two feet and how that would affect the view. Commissioner Lewis stated that if the Commissioner were to vote tonight on the merits of this project, it would be arbitrary to require the applicant to lower the ridge by two feet, or to deny him his backyard grading. He was open to continuing this matter to allow staff the opportunity to illustrate what the benefit would be in lowering the ridgeline. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing so that staff can illustrate what benefit there would be by reducing the ridgeline by two feet and what benefit there would be to limiting the grading in the rear yard, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Tomblin moved to make a friendly amendment to the motion to ask staff to include the Oceanfront Estates iandscaping restrictions for the Commission to review. Commissioner Lewis accepted the_ friendly amendment. Commissioner Leon moved to make a friendly amendment to amend the motion to get some type of quantification of the amount of grading needed to lower the lot by 10 feet. Commissioner Lewis accepted the friendly amendment Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 8 Attachments 3-249 " With that, Vice Chairman Emenhiser withdrew his second of the motion. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion and stated a new motion to continue the public hearing to allow staff to work up an illustration of the benefits that would be obtained by lowering the height of the residence by two feet; if possible, provide more information in terms of grading quantities to lower the lot and house by ten feet; for staff to provide more information to the Planning Commission on why staff was recommending denial of the extra grading in the rear yard; and for staff to provide the Oceanfront Estates landscaping restrictions for the Commission's review, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Director Rojas noted that if the applicant agrees to an extension, the item would be added to the September 11th agenda. Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Tomaro to the podium. He asked Mr. Tomaro if the applicant will grant a one-time extension per the Permit Streamling Act. He also questioned ·how easy it will be to calculate the amount of grading required to reduce the house by ten feet, and how expensive it will be to do that. Mr. Tomaro agreed to grant the one-time extension. He stated he will work with staff to calculate the benefit of lowering the ridgeline by two feet. In regards to the ten foot . reduction, he did not think it was physically possible to do and was not sure it would even make sense to study such a reduction. He estimated it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 cubic yards of grading to accomplish this. Commissioner Lewis clarified that in terms of the ten foot issue he was only looking for some discussion by staff with the applicant as to what is involved with this issue and it was not his intent for this to cost the applicant money. Commissioner Nelson stated he would not support the motion, as he did not think ten feet was worth looking at. He felt that the application as submitted was sufficient. Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Nelson that the ten feet was probably not practical. However, he felt that the other information contained in the motion is beneficial and will vote in favor of the motion. The motion to continue the public hearing to September 11, 2012 was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 2. Outdoor lighting Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, explaining staffs research on outdoor lighting and requirements in similar cities as discussed in the staff report. She Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2012 Page 9 Attachments 3-250 P.C. Staff Report of October 8, 2013 (PROJECT WITHDRAWN) Attachments 3-251 CrrYOF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dl~'J OCTOBER 8, 2013 \) v SUBJECT: .REVISION TO COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141); PROJECT ADDRESS: 3344 PALSO VERDES DRIVE WEST; APPLICA~HOSLA Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner ~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_, thereby approving a Revision to Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012-00141) for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot residence with a 977 square foot garage, 3,884 cubic yards of cut, 96 cubic yards of fill, and associated retaining and garden walls. BACKGROUND On September 25, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Case No. ZON2012-00141 (6-1, with Commissioner Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting) and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 (attached). The decision conditionally approved a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage on a vacant, downslope lot located at 3344 Palos Verde Drive West. The project included a total of 2,988 cubic yards of excavation, 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) retaining walls associated with the development of the property. The Planning Commission approved the project with the following justifications (as summarized) to make the required findings for the subject application: a) The Site Plan Review could be approved because the proposed project complies with the City's required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable height limitations for a downslope lot, as presented in the RPV Development Code for the RS-2, single-family residential zoning district. b) The Grading Permit could be approved because the proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the vacant lot with a maximum ridgeline of 276. 73'. Furthermore; the Planning Commission concluded that requiring the applicant to reduce the overall ridgeline of the proposed residence by almost 9', to a maximum height of 268.0', as encouraged by the City's Local Coastal Plan Attachments 3-252 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page2 (LCP) to minimize view impacts from Palos Verdes Drive West, would require, at minimum, an additional 3,456 cubic yards of grading and would not meet the grading criterion and would be considered excessive. c) The Coastal Permit could be approved because the subject property is not located within a specific visual corridor of the LCP; the Development Code allows a home to be constructed within a 16'/30' building envelope with a maximum ridgeline of 279.0', however the proposed residence is designed below the maximum allowable height, at an elevation of 276.73' to minimize view impacts from Palos Verdes Drive West,. as encouraged by the City's LCP; the project includes a 50'-0" front yard setback (minimum 20'-0" required by code); the project was designed to grade the site to provide a single-story fac;ade as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West, and requiring the applicant to further grade to accommodate a maximum ridgeline of 269.0' would be excessive. On September 26, 2012, a City "Notice of the Decision" (attached) memorializing the Planning Commission's decision was mailed to the applicant, all interested parties who submitted comments or attended the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, and the Coastal Commission. The Notice of Decision described the approved project and applicable Coastal Permit findings, and noted a fifteen (15) day appeal period for any interested party to appeal the project to the City Council. The appeal period expired on October 1 O, 2012. No appeal was filed with the City. On October 16, 2012, after all City appeal periods were exhausted and pursuant to RPV Municipal Code Section 17.72.070(E), the City provided a notice of its final action ("Notice of Final Decision') by first-class mail to the Coastal Commission and interested parties. The October 16, 2012 Notice of Final Decision concluded that the project was in the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, pursuant to the maps available at City Hall. On October 29, 2012, the California Coastal Commission sent the City a "Notice of Deficient Notice" (attached), noting that the subject property was located in an appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, not a non-appealable area. The Coastal Commission's notice stated that the City's action was suspended and the Coastal Commission's appeal period would not commence until a sufficient notice of action was received. On December 10, 2012, following multiple conversations between the City Staff, Coastal Commission Staff, the City Attorney and the Applicant, the City reissued a Notice of Final Decision (attached) noting that the project was located within the appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District. The notice included the procedures for appeal of the City's local decision (Planning Commission approval) to the Coastal Commission. Subsequently, the Coastal Commission provided a "Notice of Appeal Period" (attached) which noted that the Coastal ~ommission appeal period expired on December 27, 2012. On January 2, 2013, the City received notice that the proposed project was appealed within a timely manner, on December 27, 2013, by two (2) Coastal Commissioners (Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner' Shallenberger) noting concerns that the proposed project raises an issue as to the consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Specifically, the Coastal Commission had concerns that the approved project would have a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available from Palos Verdes Drive West across the vacant, residential project site, and that the City did not consider other feasible design alternatives to reduce potential visual impacts as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Between January 2013 and September 2013, the applicant discussed potential design modifications Attachments 3-253 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 3 to the project with the Coastal Commission Staff in an attempt to address the view impact concerns raised in the Coastal Commission's appeal. Ultimately, as a result of these discussions, the applicant and Coastal Commission Staff agreed upon a revised project design that would allow the Coastal Commission to withdraw its appeal. Since the agreed upon revised project differs from the project approved by the Planning Commission, an amendment to the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) is necessary. Said amendment request was submitted to the City by the applicant on September 16, 2013. The requested revisions are the subject of this Staff Report. On September 16, 2013, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, interested parties and the Coastal Commission, providing a 15-daytime period for the submittal of comments and concerns related to the proposed amended project. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 19, 2013. Other than a letter received from the Coastal Commission Staff supporting the proposed revisions (attached), Staff did not receive any public comments as result of the public notice. DISCUSSION As outlined in Table 1 below, the applicant has proposed a number of minor revisions in response to the Coastal Commission's concerns related to protecting views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Specifically, the front yard setback as measured from Palos Verdes Drive West, has increased over 17'-0", from the previously approved front yard setback of 42'-0", to a revised 59'- 1%" setback. As a result of increasing the front yard setback and slightly redesigning the main ridgeline, the overall height of the residence decreased from 14'-5%" to 9'-6", with a new main ridgeline elevation of 272.50'. There are two circular, covered patios at each end of the residence with a maximum peak at an elevation of 272.85'. In addition to siting the residence further away from Palos Verdes Drive West, the applicant slightly lowered the lowest finished grade elevation from 249.572' to a new lowest finished grade elevation of 246.90'. As a result of relocating the residence further downslope on the subject property, the topography of the property necessitated an additional 896 cubic yards of cut, and a reduction in the overall fill by 122 cubic yards. There were slight modifications made to the retaining walls and garden walls which surround the new development in order to maintain the same overall site design. As a result, the only retaining wall that increased in height was a small portion of the south side retaining wall which was previously approved at a maximum height 5' -0" and is currently proposed at heights ranging from 3'-0" to 6'-0" in height. As the project will result in additional export from the subject site, Staff requested that Public Works review the project again. As a result of the additional review, a number of conditions of approval related to Public Works review are now proposed (see Condition Nos. 36- 40 in the attached Draft Resolution). It should be noted that these conditions of approval are ~ommon for new residences and are typically captured during the Building and Safety Plan Check process. As noted above, the applicant has maintained a majority of the architectural and site design that was previously approved by the Planning Commission, but slightly relocated the residence on the existing property. These minor revisions resulted in a design that mitigates the Coastal Commission's concerns with views from Palos Verdes Drive West, as noted in their most recent letter dated September 16, 2013 (attached). Staff has reviewed the revised project and continues to recommend Planning Commission adoption of all the required findings for the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit Applications. Additionally, Staff has added Condition of Approval Nos. 41 -42 related to landscaping and fencing which was requested by the Coastal Commission, reviewed by Staff and agreed to by the applicant. This new condition of approval regulates the height of all landscaping and fences located within the property's front yard, rear yard and side yard Attachments 3-254 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page4 corridors in order to help minimize view impacts from Palos Verdes Drive West. Table 1: Project Statistics ~: ,'\;~~~~' ·~~:t.1 ~ .. '·': ~. ' . ~.-,. ' .. ~J . '''ij .,. ~ ',fff'~~SA ,i :;·RE\llS:ED 'P:ROJECT:,' .'{' ·, ; :, .• ·';>,. 01) ' ~.~:.,tit· . A ~ ... i~.., .. · , .. ·'·A 1 •. ·~:i :::\ .. · ~-;·.:::~_,:.~~~r~. ~-~·~ 1 .. i .. ,_;. t_ ~ <·~ , .. ), .... / ·. :.\ ~GRl.l'lttlA ,. · <: .. ·:·1 1· ." RNW-~r,· · PRb. . ·:fl.llt Lot Size 20,000 s.f. 43,546 No change Structure Size NIA 10,382 s.f. No change Garage 1,027 s.f 977 s.f. Setbacks Front: 151 floor 20'-0" 42'-0" 59'-1%" Side (north) 5'-0" 25'-0" to residence 21'-5%" to residence Side (south) 5'-0" 10'-9" 10'-0" Rear 15'-0" 92'-0" 71'-7%" Lot Coverage (%) 25% 24.9% 24.9% lsauare feet) (10,886.5 s.f.) (10.853 s.f.) (10,864 s.f.) Enclosed Parking 3 spaces 4 spaces No change Outdoor Parking 3 spaces 3+ spaces No change Structure Height Average elevation of 14'-5Y2'' 9'-6" the front yard 16' (ridgeline elevation (ridgeline elevation setback line to the highest ridgeline. 276.73') 272.50') Lowest grade adjacent to the 30' 24'-6%" 25'-8" building foundation/slab. Grading P.C. Approval Req. >1,000 C.Y. Excavation NIA 2,988 C.Y. 3,884C.Y. Fill NIA 218 C.Y. 96C.Y. TOTAL NIA 3,206 C.Y. 3,980 C.Y. Retaining Walls Driveway NIA 5'-0" No change Front (Upslope) NIA 3'-6" Under 3'-0" South Side NIA 5'-0" 3'-0" to 6'-0" (Upslope) Rear (Downslope) NIA 1'-0" to 3'-6" 2'-0" to 3'-0" CONCLUSION Based on a review of Staff's previous analysis, and the Planning Commission's previous decision, Staff is able to support the applicant's request for a Revision to Site Plan Review, Grading Permit Attachments 3-255 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 5 and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) as Staff believes that all the necessary findings for approval can still be made. Specifically, Staff believes that the changes to the project create no new impacts and minimize the view impacts, resulting from the project as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West, as called out for in the City's LCP. The proposed revisions were discussed with and agreed to· by the Coastal Commission, provided conditions of approval related to site landscaping, fences and structures outside of the building footprint are included. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and approve the revisions submitted by the applicant and adopt P .C. Resolution No. 2013-_. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1.. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed revision, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Revision to the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. · Attachments: • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ • California Coastal Commission Correspondence Letters/Notices o Letter agreeing to the proposed modifications (Received 09-17-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Appeal (Received 01-02-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Appeal Period (Received 12-19-13) o Coastal Commission Notification of Deficient Notice (Received 11-01-12) • P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16 (Approved September 25, 2012) • September 25, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • September 25, 2012 P.C. Minutes • September 11, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • September 11, 2012 P.C. Minutes • August 14, 2012 P.C. Staff Report • August 14, 2012 P.C. Minutes • Revised Project Plans Attachments 3-256 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 (PROJECT WITHDRAWN AND NULL AND VOID) Attachments 3-257 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A REVISION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW, GRADING PERMIT AND COASTAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,382 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 977 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A VACANT DOWNSLOPING LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 3,884 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 96 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND THREE (3) ASSOICATED RETAINING WALLS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO ZON2012- 00141). WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the property owner, Ravi Khosla, submitted applications for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for approval to construct a new home on a vacant residential property; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2012·00141 was deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested applications would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(a); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, at which time the public hearing was continued to September 25, 2012 to allow Staff and the Applicant time to research any benefits of reducing the proposed ridgeline by 1 '-9" and any reduction in overall grading; and, WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Case No. ZON2012-00141 and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16, conditionally approving a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two- story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, a total of 2,988 cubic yards of excavation, 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) retaining walls associated with the development of the property; and, WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, a City "Notice of the Decision" memorializing the Planning Commission's decision was mailed to the applicant, all interested parties who submitted comments or attended the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, and the Coastal Commission. The Notice of Decision described the approved project and applicable Coastal Permit findings, and noted a fifteen (15) day appeal period for any interested party to appeal the project to the City Council. The appeal period expired on October 10, 2012. No appeal was filed with the City; and, Attachments 3-258 WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, after all City appeal periods were exhausted and pursuant to RPV Municipal Code Section 17.72.070(E), the City provided a notice of its final action (''Notice of Final Decision') by first-class mail to the Coastal Commission and interested parties. The October 16, 2012 Notice of Final Decision concluded that the project was in the non-appeal able area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, pursuant to the maps available at City Hall; and, WHEREAS, on October 29, 2012, the California Coastal Commission sent the City a ·'Notice of Deficient Notice," noting that the subject property was located in an appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, not a non-appealable area, and notified the City that its action was suspended and the Coastal Commission's appeal period would not commence until a sufficient notice of action was received; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012, following multiple conversations between the City Staff, Coastal Commission Staff, the City Attorney and the Applicant, the City reissued a Notice of Final Decision noting that the project was located within the appeal able area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District. The notice included the procedures for appeal of the City's local decision (Planning Commission approval) to the Coastal Commission. Subsequently, the Coastal Commission provided a "Notice of Appeal Period" (attached) which noted that the Coastal Commission appeal period expired on December 27, 2012; and, WHEREAS, on January 2, 2013, the City received notice that the proposed project was appealed within a timely manner, on December 27, 2013, by two (2) Coastal Commissioners {Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner Shallenberger) noting concerns that the proposed project raises an issue as to the consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Specifically, the Coastal Commission had concerns that the approved project would have a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available from Palos Verdes Drive West across the vacant, residential project site. Additionally, the Coastal Commission opined that the City did not consider other feasible design alternatives to reduce potential visual impacts as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West; and, WHEREAS, between January 2013 and September 2013, the applicant discussed potential design modifications to the project with the Coastal Commission Staff which would address the Coastal Commission's view impact concerns raised in the appeal. As a result of these discussions, on September 16, 2013, the applicant submitted a request for a Revision to the approved Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141). WHEREAS, on September 16, 2013, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, interested parties and the Coastal Commission, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 19, 2013. Other than a letter received from the Coastal Commission Staff supporting the proposed revisions (attached), Staff did not receive any public comments as result of the public notice. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 2of13 Attachments 3-259 Section 1: The Planning Commission does hereby find that a Revision to the Site Plan Review can be approved as the revised 10,382 square foot residence, 977 square foot garage, pool, spa and other ancillary improvements (trellis, firepit, BBQ, and covered entry) comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zoning district. Specifically, the proposed improvements will meet the required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks, as well as the 16'/30' building height and maximum 25% lot coverage. Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact in order to approve the Revision to the Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new residence and other ancillary improvements because: A The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The underlying zoning district is single-family residential. The proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot. A total of 3,884 cubic yards of cut will be conducted on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas. More specifically, 1, 737 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the new residence, 679 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway, 237 cubic yards of cut to create a level courtyard at the front of the residence, and 1,231 cubic yards of cut at the rear of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal amount of dirt (96 cubic yards) within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, it appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable yard area. B. The grading would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor views from the viewing area of neighboring properties as the proposed retaining walls will follow the existing contours as seen from the street and neighboring properties. A total of three (3) retaining walls are proposed around the property, in addition to other garden walls that are below 3'-0" in height. Two (2) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A third retaining wall will reach a maximum height of 3'-0" in the rear yard of the property. Although the height ~f the retaining wall is minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure, due to the fact that the applicant is excavating beneath the new residence, the finished grade will ultimately be lowered. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have been built in the same location. C. The proposed grading which accommodates the new residence and development of the single-family residential lot minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence, vehicular access, and useable rear yard area. The existing contours outside of the graded area and retaining walls P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 3of13 Attachments 3-260 will be maintained. Further, the vacant lot is zoned for residential development, and can accommodate a new single-family residence. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. The majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and hillside surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. E. The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The new residence will be proportional to the neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the original character, style and setting of the neighborhood. While the square footage of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). With regard to bulk and mass, the proposed improvements would not be significant. due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side of Marguerite Drive. The orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Additionally, although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural typefstyle, the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fac;:ade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents, such as multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, and first and second story accent molding, to break up the potential impacts of a large home. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. a) The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. b) The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill and height of retaining walls for two (2) of the three (3) proposed retaining walls. More specifically, no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re- contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. The construction of the residence and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of B'-12 in order to accommodate the residence which is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 4 of 13 Attachments 3-261 on a downslope lot that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and protects views of the ocean from Palos Verdes Drive West. c) Although a 6'-0" tall upslope retaining wall exceeds the allowable heights for upslope retaining walls on a single-family residential lot, the Planning Commission finds that the south side yard retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in Section 17. 76.040 of the Municipal Code. Approving the deviation to the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that would help support the rear and side yard of the property. Further, retaining walls are commonly found within the hillside neighborhood and approval of the retaining wall which exceeds 3'-6" would not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside topography. Additionally, the retaining wall cannot be seen from other neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. Lastly, the retaining waif and grading would not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a soil engineering report. d) Pursuant to Section 17.76.040(E)(10)(e) of the RPV Municipal Code, the City is required to notify all owners of property adjacent to the subject property whenever a grading permit is granted for development in excess of that permissible under Section 17. 76.040(E)(9) of the RPV Municipal Code. As such, a Notice of Decision will be sent to the following adjacent property owners: 1) Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association I 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2) Stiassni Family/ 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 3) Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab / 7416 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Section 3: The .revision to the Coastal Permit to allow the construction of a new single- family residence within the Coastal Zone can be approved because: A The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which contains Policy No. 8 (pg. S1-11) that "[requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should be designed so as to not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicant's plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant's lot, is at an average elevation of 268.0'. When implementing the guidelines of the Coastal Specific Plan, the applicant would be limited to constructing a residence with a ridgeline just above the 268.0 curb elevation. and would require over 3,000 more cubic yards of grading. The Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) of the Coastal Specific Plan, "require[s] development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... " The subject property is located on a downslope lot, whereby the Development Code allows a residence to be constructed at 16'-0" as measured from average elevation of.the setback line (elevation 263.0') to the top of the highest ridgeline. This would allow a home to be built "by-right" with a ridgeline elevation of 279.0'. As a result of a Coastal Commission appeal, and subsequent to project P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 5 of 13 Attachments 3-262 modifications reviewed and agreed to by the Coastal Commission, the applicant has proposed a number of minor revisions to reduce impacts related to ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Specifically, the applicant has increased the front yard setback by over 17'-0", to 59'-1%'', and reduced the main ridgeline to 272.5'. Additionally, conditions of approval were added to the project to limit the height of landscaping, structures and fences located outside of the building footprint so that they do not impair views of the ocean from the public right-of-way. As a result of these revisions, the views of the ocean, as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West are protected across the sides and top of the residence. Furthermore, a condition was added to ensure that the final ridgeline will be lower than the horizon line, pursuant to a photograph submitted as part of the record and attached hereto. B. The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area. Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property. The proposed residence will be located on a lot that was previously developed with a single-family residence prior to the City's incorporation. As noted in the grading findings, the proposed grading outside of the construction of the residence and access is minimal and will follow the contours of the existing land, with the exception of one small area (less than 10% of the lot area) in the south side yard where a 6'-0" tall retaining wall will be located. B. The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies. Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed in the Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The subject property was previously developed with a single-family residential dwelling and ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and is zoned for residential use. The property is listed as a potential area for archaeological and paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" will be required to be reported immediately to the Community Development Director and are to be first offered to the City for preservation. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 6 of 13 , .. Attachments 3-263 Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the performance criterion listed the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. The proposed residence is located on a legal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home with a 16'/30' building height envelope. The project is not located within a view corridor as designated by the Coastal Specific Plan of the City. Furthermore, the project has been designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West by providing a large front yard setback and ridgeline below what could be building "by-right" on a downsloping lot. Furthermore, the property is located just south of a large open space area that provides ocean views for pedestrians and drivers along Palos Verdes Drive West. Construction of a new home on the previously developed property would not significantly affect the ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the. applicant is grading down to accommodate the construction of the residence and following the natural contours to grade the yard areas within the front and rear yard of the home. Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1 )(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following October 8, 2013, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141) to allow the construction of a new, two-story single-family home and associated grading and retaining walls, located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this gth day of October 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Leoti NOES: Commissioner Tetreault and Chairman Emenhiser ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: None P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 7of13 Attachments 3-264 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2012-00141 (Khosla, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement. in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts. dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements. the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations. or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or. if not addressed herein. shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage stan.dards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be 7. cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 8 of 13 Attachments 3-265 apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 11. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 25% lot coverage (24.9% proposed). 13. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20' front (59'-1 %" proposed to residence), 15' rear (71 '-7%" proposed), 5' north side (21 '-5o/." proposed to residence) and 5' east side (10'-0" proposed). BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 14. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 15. A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance. 16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 18. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a lo.cation that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 9of13 Attachments 3-266 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood-burning devices. 24. This approval is for a 10,382 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and a 977 square- foot 4-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 25. The maximum main ridgeline of the approved project is 272.50'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. The peak of the two circular covered patios at the front of the residence shall not exceed an elevation of 272.85' Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the lowest finished floor elevation of 247.239' and lowest finished grade elevation adjacent to the structure elevation as 246.90'. 26. The proposed chimney(s) may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 27. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy. 28. This approval includes a total of 3,980 cubic yards of grading (3,884 cubic yards of cut and 96 cubic yards of fill. 29. The following three (3) retaining walls are approved: a. A downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard ranging in height from 2'-0" to 3'- 0" in overall height. b. A 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located adjacent to the proposed driveway c. A 3'-0" to 6'-0'' tall upslope retaining wall located along the south side property line All other planter walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 2'-11" and shall be located at least 3'-0" from any other walls. 30. The applicant shall provide and maintain landscaping to screen the 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall. All landscaping shall be installed and approved by the Director prior to final on the building permit for the residence. 31. The property owner shall comply with Chapter 15.34 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Documentation Package as defined by Chapter 15.34. Said package shall be reviewed by the City's landscaping consultant and approved by the Community Development Director. The Landscape Documentation Package shall be prepared and signed by a landscape architect, landscape designer, or irrigation designer, as appropriate, except that the soil management report shall be prepared by a qualified soil and plan laboratory. The applicant is responsible for paying for the review by the City's Landscape Consultant. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 10 of 13 Attachments 3-267 32. The property owner shall be prohibited from the use of herbicides to control or kill vegetation. 33. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property. The survey results shall be provided to the Community Development Director or his/her designee for review prior to grading permit issuance. 34. If the results of the Phase 1 archaeological survey identify the potential existence of archaeological and/or paleontological resources, prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. Qualifications of the archaeologist and paleontologist shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Community Development Director. All archaeological and paleontological finds shall be first offered to the City for preservation. 35. The applicant shall not use any portion of the proposed residence as a second dwelling unit without obtaining the appropriate Planning and Building Permits. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the new residence, a covenant shall be recorded with the country recorder as a covenant running with the land prohibiting the use of a second dwelling unit without further planning review and approval. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation, and shall prohibit the use of more than one cooking facility on the property unless approval of a Second Dwelling Unit is approved by the Community Development Department. A cooking facility includes a stove, oven, range, or any other built-in appliance related to food preparation. 36. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide a hydrology study prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall include a detail drainage conveyance system, including applicable on-site, off-site. and street flows, which will allow the building site to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff from the roadway which may be expected from all storms, up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. 37. All damaged curb and gutter, sidewalk, trails, and asphalt in front of the proposed home must be removed and replaced in kind to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 38. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City's NPDES consultant shall review and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project site. 39. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. 40. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, prior to final certificate of use and occupancy, the following items shall be addressed: P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 11 of 13 Attachments 3-268 :,,-. a) All existing improvements in the PROW adjacent to the subject location (Coastal Trail Improvements) must be protected in place and/or restored to a condition of new as a result of the project. b) Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in reviewing the construction plans and issuance of a public works encroachment permit. c) No above-ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way d) All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach (minimum 2 feet away from the driveway edge) e) Only cement concrete allowed for driveway extension into the public right of way. f) Proposed driveway approach must be constructed in accordance with APWA Std. Plan 110-0 and the City's requirements. 41. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, final landscape plans for the subject site that shall demonstrate the following: a. Within the property's side yard corridors, defined as the first 10'-0", measured from the south side property line, or the first 15'-0", measured from the north side property line, for the entire length of the lot, all landscaping shall be composed of low-growing plants which do not exceed an elevation of 270.0'. In the side yard corridors and rear ·yard area, all landscaping, walls, and structures shall be in compliance with the Development Code heights, but in no case shall exceed a maximum elevation of 270.0', in order to preserve views from the street toward the ocean; b. All landscaping located between the residence and Palos Verdes Drive West, not including the side yard areas defined in "a" above, shall be composed of species which do not exceed the ridgeline of the house, which is a maximum elevation of 272.5', and shall be maintained at that maximum height to preserve views from the street toward the ocean. c. All fencing located throughout the subject property, shall comply with the following: i. Fencing within the side yard corridor, defined in "a" above, may be allowed above elevation 270.0', provided the fencing is limited to visually permeable designs and materials, such as wrought iron. New fencing shall be limited to the height limits defined by the City's Development Code and be consistent with this condition. All bars, beams, or other non-visually permeable materials used in the construction of a fence above elevation 270.0' shall be no more than one inch in thickness/width and shall be placed no less than 12 inches apart in distance. Alternative designs may be allowed only if the Community Development Director determines that such designs are consistent with the intent of this condition and serve to minimize adverse effects to public views of the ocean. ii. The existing 6'-0" tall, legal, non-conforming wrought iron fence along the front property is permitted to remain. In the event the existing front property line fence is removed (including the replacement of 50% or more of the existing structure or as defined in the Development Code, whichever is more P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 12of13 Attachments 3-269 strict), the new fence would need to comply with the City's Development Code, and the property owner will be required to obtain the appropriate City approvals. iii. The required pool fencing shall be located outside of the side yard corridors, as defined in "a" above. 42. This permit is only for the development described in Case No. ZON2012-00141. The exemptions to Coastal Development Permits otherwise provided for by the Development Code shall not apply to the development governed by Case No. ZON2012-00141. Accordingly, any future improvements to the development authorized by this permit, including but not limited to additions to the residence or installation of landscaping not identified in the approved landscape plan, shall require the approval of an amendment to Case No. ZON2012-00141 from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. or shall require the approval of an additional coastal development permit from the City, unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed future improvement is consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit and would not obstruct views to the ocean. 43. Prior to installation of roof sheathing, but after installation of roof framing, the property owner shall contact the City to conduct an inspection of the ridgeline of the residence to ensure that the final constructed ridgeline (excluding chimneys, vents or architectural accents) will be below the horizon line and extend no higher into the ocean view as depicted in the photograph attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Said inspection of the ridgeline height shall be performed while standing in the center of the public trail at a location that corresponds to the midpoint of the subject property's front property line. The observation level shall be 5 feet 7 inches above the level of the public trail surface. If it is determined by the Director that the finished ridgeline will extend higher than the level depicted in the photograph attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, the property owner shall take whatever steps necessary to reduce the ridgeline to the level depicted in Exhibit Bas viewed from the viewing location described above. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23 Page 13 of 13 Attachments 3-270 Exhibit B Attachments 3-271 •' "· .. .. ·~ 3 t· Attachments 3-272 P.C. Minutes of October 8, 2013 (PROJECT WITHDRAWN) Attachments 3-273 Vice Chairman Leon reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast as well as the PBCA meeting. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the CJPIA meeting with the City Council on Saturday, October 5th _ COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON20 13-00317): 29137 Covecrest Drive Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the two app lications. She stated that staff determined that , given the additions are not very visible and the entry add ition will be recessed back from the garage fa9ade , staff felt the bulk and mass of the resulting residence will be relativel y the same as the existing residence . She noted there are no substantial changes proposed to the setbacks and the height will remain the same . Therefore , staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the He ight Variation and S ite Plan Review. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers , closed the publ i c hearing . Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. The motion was approved, thereby approving PC Resolution 2013-22 (7-0). 3. Revision to Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012-00141): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Vice Chairman Leon disclosed he is in the process of inheriting a home on Via Cambron , but believed it is more than 500 feet from the subject property . He noted he does not own the property at this time , and he did not think this would have any bear ing on his decision on this hearing . Associate Pla nner Mikhai l presented the staff report, beginning w ith a background of the project and the previous approval. She discussed view corridors outlined in the City 's Coastal Specific Plan , noting the subject site is not within one of the identified view corridors . She also explained that properties outside of a view corridor are subject to a Guideline i n the Coastal Specific Plan that discusses a two -degree down arc from a viewing station . She d isplayed several photos of the new, revised silhouette on the property as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and the walking trail along the public Pla nning Commission Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 2 Attachments 3-274 right-of-way. She briefly discussed the previously approved project at the site, and the Commission 's reasons for approving the Coastal Permit. She displayed a site plan of the revised proposed project, noting the size of the residence is the same, however the ridgeline is lower and the garage has been reduced in size . She noted the increase in grading quantity due to the proposed revisions . She stated that staff feels the increase in grading quantity is m i nimal compared to the reduction in impacts the applicant has proposed in reducing the ridgeline and increasing the front setback. Director Rojas explained that this project was previously before the Commission , a decision was made, and there was no appeal of that decision . Because this is a Coastal Permit , the City is required to give notice to the Coastal Commission of all final City decisions . As a result of that notice, the decision was appealed by the Coastal Commission , explaining at that point it is out of the City's hands and between the applicant and the Coastal Commission staff. He noted that in this case a solution was worked out that addressed the Coastal Commission's concerns. Staff was notified of the changes and the applicant submitted a revised project that is back before the Planning Commission. He explained that since this is a de novo hearing the entire project is before the Commission , not just the revisions . Chairman Emenhiser asked staff why the Coastal Commission had concerns about this particular project. Director Rojas answered that their concern was the blockage of views from the public right-of-way. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the viewing station and viewing plane that is referenced in the Coastal Specific Plan, noting it is a guideline and not an actual part of the Development Code . He questioned what this guideline refers to . Director Rojas explained this property does not fall within a view corridor, and the Coastal Specific Plan discusses protecting views from viewing stations. The guideline is to help guide the City to meet the goal of minimizing views from public rights -of-way . Commissioner Tetreault asked where the two degree downward arc is calculated from in relation to this particular property. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that it would be from a standing position on an adjoining public trail , explaining that when driving on Palos Verdes Drive West this property only impacts a small percentage of the total view . Thus , staff felt that walking down the trail on Palos Verdes Drive West was a more applicable viewing station. Commissioner Tetreault questioned how staff determines a viewing station. Director Rojas read from the August 2012 staff report which explained how staff determined the viewing station for this project and how the down arc was calculated. Plan ning Commission Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 3 Attachments 3-275 Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing . Louie Tomaro (applicant/architect) explained he has revised the plans by lowering the building and pushing it back ten feet. He briefly discussed his communications with the Coastal Commission, noting that clear findings by the Coastal Commission were made that the home will not be in a specific view corridor, that there was an original home on the property that blocked views from Palos Verdes Drive West, and there have been a number of projects recently approved in the area that are similar in scale . He noted the Coastal Commission asked him to provide a clear horizon view over the structure, which he has done. He noted that the Coastal Commission is now in support of the proposed project. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr . Tomaro what the elevation of the two degree down arc was in regards to the maximum ridgeline of the residence. Mr. Tomaro answered that he did not calculate that , as the house has moved ten feet further back on the property . He estimated the elevation to be approximately 268.5 . Commissioner Tetreault asked if the silhouette currently on the property was adjusted to reflect the current proposal. Mr. Tomaro answered that the silhouette on the property reflects the current proposal. Commissioner Tetreault noted that none of the photos presented by staff shows a view from the street looking straight across the property. He felt that from Palos Verdes Drive West, heading south, this project does not appear to provide a clear horizon view over the structure. He noted the top of the silhouette is above the horizon line when he was standing on the walkway along Palos Verdes Drive West, noting all he could see was the very tops of the peaks on Catalina Island. He asked, if the Coastal Commission asked that he provide a clear horizon view over the structure, from what or where they were referring to. Mr. Tomaro explained that Coastal Commission staff visited the property and spent quite a bit of time on this subject. He stated the viewing station was directly in the middle of the property from the view of a person walking on the decomposed granite walking path on Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner Tetreault took exception, noting that he went to the property specifically to see the horizon line from the position Mr. Tomaro just described, and he could not see the ocean or the horizon line at all due to the proposed structure . Mr. Tomaro stated he has communication from Coastal Commission staff confirming they were in support of the project with the ridgeline at the current proposed height. He added that he would not want to go through this process again without the support of the Coastal Commission, and if the Planning Commission approves this project the Coastal Commission will once again be notified . Planning Com mission Minutes October 8 , 2013 Page 4 Attachments 3-276 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Tomaro to discuss the proposed landscaping. Mr. Tomaro explained the Coastal Commission asked for a condition to address and control the height of the landscaping . He referred to condition No . 41 of the Resolution . Raju Chabbria spoke in support of the project , noting the architect and owner have worked very closely with the Coastal Commission to get this far with the project. Ramesh Khosla stated that he is the father of the owner and that they have taken almost everything into consideration with this design . He assured the Commission that everything will be taken care of and they will build a good house that everyone will be proud of. Jason Sikola did not feel this house conforms to the Coastal Specific Plan guidelines . He questioned why the lot could not be graded lower . He felt rules were stretched for this project and questioned if the City has done their due diligence . He referred to the homes built at Oceanfront Estates, and noted they are built at a level quite a bit lower than the street level. He stated he did not previously contest this project, however if the Planning Commission approves the current project he will contest it with the City and the Coastal Commission. Nick Stiassni pointed out on a photo where he lives , noting there is nobody who is more affected by this project more than he and his family . He noted the owners have met with him several times and been very concerned about maintaining his privacy. He stated he is very comfortable with the proposed project and was in favor of the project as presented . Commissioner Lewis asked staff if there was anything in the existing conditions of approval that documents the requirement that someone standing on the trail at a given point can see the horizon , as required by the Coastal Commission . Director Rojas answered there is currently no such condition . Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they would object to a condition being added that said following the completion of construction, someone standing at a specified point on the trail should be able to see the horizon . Director Rojas answered the Commission can add that condition of approval, noting that can most likely be verified during the framing process. Shamita Khosla (owner) distributed a photo of the property to the Commission to view and stated they have worked very hard to get to this point and would like to build their home in this community . Pl an ni ng Commiss io n Minutes O ct obe r 8 , 201 3 P ag e 5 Attachments 3-277 Commissioner Tetreault stated he had a question for the person w ho took the photo the Commission was currently viewing . Ravi Khosla (owner) stated his dream when he purchased this property was to build a two-story home like the one on the neighboring property. However, going through the process he realized it was not right and therefore chose to bu i ld a home that does not require any type of variance from the Development Code . Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Khosla where he was standing when he took the photo that was distributed . Mr. Khosla answered he took the photo while they were go ing through the process with the Coastal Commission staff and he was standing on the walkway on Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Khosla if he would be agreeable to a condition of approval that the final structure be below the horizon line from the viewpoint documented in Mr. Khosla's photograph . Mr. Khosla answered he would be agreeable to such a condition. Commissioner Lewis asked that a copy of the picture that was distributed be given to staff to be part of the record . Lenee Bilski stated she sent a letter in with detailed comments about the project , and was happy the Coastal Commission had the same concerns. She stated she was not opposed to the owner building on his property, but was opposed to the project as presented as it protrudes into the public views. She stated the City has a Coastal Specific Plan , and this project site being within the coastal zone, is therefore subject to that program. She saw no indication that the grade has been lowered to comply with the appeal to lower the ridgeline to preserve and protect the public views . She felt if the Commission allows this developer to put aside the foundations that are the policy of the Coastal Specific Plan they will be setting a precedent for not only the City but coastal properties throughout California. She stated that all of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South are considered a visual corridor and therefore should be observed as such, and the developer should follow the standards in place . She also questioned the measurement from eye level , and felt that the measurement should be lowered to be eye level from a vehicle . She felt the property should be graded down lower to bring it into compliance. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated that the Coastal Commission saw that the original proposal did not meet the intent of what they wanted, while this current proposal was approved and meets the intent of the LCP . He also noted that the view provided with this proposal is far improved from what it was when the original house with large trees were on the property. He stated the Coastal Commission acknowledged the view is Planning Com mis sion Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 6 Attachments 3-278 being enhanced and also acknowledged t hey are trying to be consistent with their approvals , noting th e three previously approved projects on Palos Verdes Drive . Chairman Emenhiser close d the public hearing . Commissione r Lewis stated he had voted to approve the project when it was previously before the Commission and he hasn 't heard anything at this meeting to change that vote . He noted that the applicant has stated the Coastal Commission was in support of the p roject if the ri dgeline of the home were lowered sufficiently to make the horizon visi ble. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation, with an additiona l condition added that the final ridgeline be lowe r than the horizon from the po int where a pedestrian is standing on the path on Palos Verdes Drive West at the mid-po int of the lot looking out towards the ocean . Director Rojas clarified that staff w i ll write the condition so that the ridgeline cannot be higher than the ridgel ine level depicted by the e xist in g silhouette on the property , as shown in the submitted photograph . In addition , he felt that the height of the pedestrian should be clarified . He explai ned that in the August 2012 staff report, staff took a five foot measurement from the 268 elevation on the path , Coastal Commission staff was at the site , and others may have taken pictures from the site, all at different heights. He did not want to set up the situation where someone walks by the property and complains they cannot see the horizon and therefore the house has to be lowered. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to clarify the measurement be taken from a six foot point above the path level, and that the photo displayed by staff be added as an attachment to the Resolution as a reference , seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Tetreault briefly reviewed the history of the approvals on this property , and noted that when th is project was before the Commissi on in 2012 he voted to approve the project. However, looking back to a 1999 City approval , he felt that if this was the bas i s by which the Planning Commission approved the project, they were factually incorrect with their reasoning , explaining that at a ridgeline height of 275 .7 5 feet , which is what the ridgeline would have been , there is no view of the ocean . He felt he establ ished that with h is site visit when he stood on the path , at a point at the center of the property, and could not see the horizon over the silhouette . He noted that is at the 272 .5 elevation , which is lower than the orig inal 275 .75 feet. He also referred to staff's presentation , noting staff did not present a picture of the silhouette from the point being described . However, staff did present pictures of the silhouette taken from different angles and staff did comment that the flags on the silhouette were above the horizon line and remained that way consistently wh i le walking the pathway. Therefore , he felt this is a project that appears , by the evidence before the Commission , to allow for no ocean view and very little Catalina Island view for anyone walking along this pathway. He felt the C ity has Ordinances , the Coastal Specific Plan , and Guidelines to Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 7 Attachments 3-279 help protect the shared public resource of views . He stated that , when looking at the Coastal Commission's appeal of this project and their reasoning behind it , he made a mistake when he voted in favor of this project last year. He felt that more things could be done to help restore the horizon line and therefore could not support the project as presented . Comm issioner Lewis asked Commissioner Tetreault if the condition he added in his motion would give him a level of comfort that there would be a horizon view . Comm issioner Tetreault understood, however he also knew how things get built, and felt that once the structure was at the point where one can actually see that there is a problem , they will most likely be hundreds of thousands of dollars into the construction . He questioned what the City will do at that point if the structure is too high . He stated the plan before the Commission shows a structure at 272 .5 feet and he cannot approve that. Vice Chairman Leon stated he looked up the average height of women and men in the United States , and felt that a five-foot viewing height , as opposed to a six-foot viewing height, would more closely reflect the average height. He felt the condition suggested by Commissioner Lewis is draconian enough to ensure that the public view is protected and would encourage the applicant to check the height a bit more thoroughly during construction. Therefore, with this condition he felt he could support the project. Commissioner Nelson felt the applicant has exercised extreme patience under a situation of maximum duress . He noted the applicant has support of the neighbor most affected by the construction, there are other homes nearby at a similar or higher elevation, and there was a home previously on the property that offered less of an ocean view as the currently proposed project. He can therefore support the project as conditioned by Commissioner Lewis . Commissioner Tomblin stated that he voted to support the previous project , and would vote again to support the current project. He stated he also supports Commissioner Lewis' amendment to help mitigate the view discrepancies . Commissioner Gerstner stated he also supported the previous project and will again support this project. He appreciated what the Coastal Commission has done in appealing this project and the eventual outcome , and felt this is a better project because of it. As to the proposed condition , he explained he is always concerned that conditions do not have enough teeth to them, and if there is a condition that says the horizon line must be maintained then he would expect that to be the case. If it means additional work must be done to meet this condition he would put it on the architect and owner to make sure that happens . Commissioner Tetreault asked for what purpose the displayed photo would be used . Pl an ni ng Commission M inutes O c tober 8, 20 13 Page 8 Attachments 3-280 Commissioner Lewis explained that the photo represents what the Coastal Commission would approve if it goes back to them . Therefore , he felt the photo would be used as a benchmark and what it is compared with is a photo taken of the project as built. He agreed with the Vice Chairman's comment about the average height of people and was comfortable lowering the viewing height by two inches. He stated that his intention with this added condition was to make it a dracon ian condition and require the viewing line be strictly complied with . Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion that the view be taken from a standing height of five feet ten inches on the path, rather than six feet, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Chairman Emenhiser stated he was in the minority by voting against this project originally, and would probably be in the minority again. He did feel the project has been improved and will be built, and was troubled that the Coastal Commission has a higher standard for coastal views than Rancho Palos Verdes . Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had language that could be read to the Commission, or was this a case where the Resolution would have to come back to the Commission for approval. Director Rojas stated staff understands the motion and can craft a condition that meets the motion , and it is up to the Commission if they want to see the condition before they approve it. He added that he looked up the average difference of eye level to the top of the head, which is five inches . Commissioner Lewis calculated that if the height of the lens is at five feet ten inches , the approximate height of the individual would be six feet two inches . Therefore, he amended his motion that the height be five feet seven inches, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Vice Chairman Leon stated that the typical way to determine if a structure is at the correct height is , while in framing , a surveyor checks the height of the structure. He would prefer setting a height above mean sea level that can be verified during the framing stage. At the request of the Chairman, Commissioner Lewis repeated his motion that the Commission approve staff's recommendation with the added condition that the photo being displayed be attached to the Resolution and that the final ridgeline be no higher than what is depicted in the photograph as seen from a photo taken with a camera taken at a height of five feet seven inches standing in the middle of the path at the mid- point of the lot. The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2013-23, (5-2) with Commissioner Tetreault and Chairman Emenhiser dissenting . Pl anni ng Comm iss ion Minutes October 8, 20 13 Page 9 Attachments 3-281 Late Correspondence from October 8, 2013 (PROJECT WITHDRAWN) Attachments 3-282 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Carolynn Petru Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:08 PM Joel Roja s; Leza M ikha il Subject: FW: Planning Commission item # 3 -CASE NO. ZON2012-00141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST FYI From: George Fink [mailto:gfinkll@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 08 , 2013 5:38 PM To: CC Cc: 'Mickey Radich'; 'JIM BU LLARD'; paul@agajanianlaw.com Subject: FW: Planning Commission item# 3 -CASE NO . ZON2012-00141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Dear C ity Council Members, I agree completely with both Lenee and Ed . Please enforce compliance with existing City requirements . With regard to out of control foliage, far taller than the wrought iron fences borde ring property, I strong ly recommend that the City require that builders/residents submitting landscape plans for City approval, usually a prerequis ite to granting of grad ing permits. be required to select plants whose untrimmed heights are such that, when m atu re, they s hall not cause violation of the foliage max height limits placed upon the bu il ders/residents. To re li eve the City staff of the burden of researching the maximum untrimmed height of plants shown on an applican t's proposed landscape plan, require th at the applicant state the maximum untrimmed height of the species shown on the p lan. This w i ll take the "I selected from the C ity provided pallet" c lub out of the applicant's hand, reduce the C ity staffs review burden to samp le audits , and minimize the City's foliage trimming height enforcement burden . From: ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox. net] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9 :56 PM To: paul@agajanianlaw.com Cc: 'Leza Mikhail'; cc@rpv.com Subject: Planning Commission item # 3 -CASE NO. ZON2012-00 141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Dear Paul Tetreault & City Council Members, I totally agree with the excellent explanation that Lenee wrote you. George F ink She brought up an excellent point that has been totally ignored by the City to preserve the open Coastal View corridor along the wrought iron fence that was required to preserve the open view & then the homeowners or developers of the property allow the foliage to cover the fence & then plant trees on the other side & allow them to grow to completely block all future view. This is a very important issue for this project & all past & future projects. It is the Cities responsibility to set up a system in perpetuity to protect the view for future generations to enjoy. Attachments 3-283 This issue has been ignored by Trump & Terranea & numerous developments along PvDr S & W including along Crest between Hawthorne & Crenshaw-along Hawthorne between PV DR S & Crest. The future Generations will hopefully be able to enjoy the View. They will not have any i dea how hard we fought to help maintain the view. Edward Stevens 45 Year Seaview Resident across from Trump ****************************************************************************** Planning Commission item # 3 CASE NO. ZON2012-00141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Oct. 8 , 2013 Dear RPV Planning Commissioners, I am opposed to ap pro va l of thi s rev i sion because the public's v iew from Palos Verdes Dr .. West will be blocked as the st ruc ture is still too high . Palo s Ver des Drive West is a p ubl i c viewing s tation accord ing to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan, our LCP. Pl ease vote for Alternative No. 1. Where are the photos of the site w ith the s ilhouette ? I see none in the report. Today I passed by the si te and the fl aggi ng is down -probably blown down by the r ecent strong winds. I read that contrary to the notice I first received about this site, this property IS in an area that can be appealed to the Coastal Commission. And it has been. On p. 32 of 111 the CA Coastal Commissioners' reason for the appeal is stated: "As approved, the proposed proj e ct proj ec ts into the v i ew corridor [from Palos Verdes Dr. West] and is th erefore inconsistent with the visual protection poli cies of the certified LCP." That's the i ss ue -observing the 2-degree down arc height limits of our LCP . I don't see anything in the appeal that direct s the owner to "minimi ze" the view obstruction. The revision does not lower the house enough accordin g to the Coastal Appeal. Additional grading where the h ouse wo uld be located i s needed to comply with th e 2-de g ree down arc from the viewing statio n . Grading down e ven if there are rocks there is what is needed and feasible Gust more costly I am to ld). Of the 3,206 cy of approved gradin g for the P.C.-ap pro ve d project only 1,28 1 cy was for the home. How much grading is for this revised hom e d esign? The latest letter from Coastal staff do es not appear to be a "decision". (see pg. 2 1 of 111 in staff report). The appeal has not been heard in front of the Coastal Commis sion. T he structure height and the landscaping as proposed would impair views fo r the pub l ic from Palos Verdes Dr. West, w hich includes a segment of th e Californi a Coastal Trail. PVDrive sh ould be protected as a visual corridor according to the RPV Coasta l Speci fic Plan (pg. C-9 and pg. C-11 , 12) and according to the Commi ss ioner s ' Appeal. The "specific " visua l corridors staff menti ons that are in the LCP refer to specific v istas su ch as a li ghthouse or promontory as th e focal point. Palos Verdes Drive is described as the "primary visu a l corridor accessi bl e to the greatest number of viewers" in the Coast a l Specifi c Plan. A "continuous viewin g s tation." Pl ease clarify: where is the viewing s tation? Palos Verdes Drive is mainly used by mo tor ve hicles. The public view includ es viewing from a car. I don't see any calculations ba se d on th e view from a passenger sedan. (not an SUV or truck) I only read about a p edestri an eye-l eve l h eight of 5 feet. Some chi ldren ar e not 5 fe et hi gh. T he Coastal Specific Pl an under Visual Corridors refers to views from th e vehicular corridor of Palos 2 Attachments 3-284 Verdes Drive that should be protected (pg. C-9) Shouldn't the public's eye-level while traveling in a car be the basis for the measurements? The city has a policy. This development should be consistent with the policy, the certified LCP. The residential design appears to be very attractive, though it is extremely wide across the site. How many feet across is it as seen from PV Dr. West? How wide is the lot? The Landscaping limitation does not address keeping the height of foliage next to the existing wrought iron fence low enough to allow continued light and air and viewing through it. Please check on this. Please identify view obstruction as being inconsistent with the LCP and vote for Alternative No. 1. Further limit the height, limit the foliage height. If the height is allowed to be above the Coastal Specific Plan limitations (intruding into the 2 degree-down-arc from the street viewing station), that could set a precedent for all the coastal areas. Also please limit the foliage height next to the fence so it will not impact the public's view. How far from the fence should the foliage be trimmed? How do we prevent the owner from growing a view-obstructing hedge behind the fence? Please discuss. Thank you for your service to RPV! Slncerely, Lenee Bilski 50 year resident 3 Attachments 3-285 Leza Mikhail ·om: .Jent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas Friday, October 04, 2013 12:41 PM Leza M i khail FW: October 8, 2013 , PC Agenda Item 3. 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West From: SunshineRPV@ao l.com [SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12 :36 PM To: PlanningCommission; Planning; Ara Mihranian Cc: CC Subject: October 8, 2013 , PC Agenda Item 3. 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV Planning Commission and Staff RE : October 8, 2013, PC Agenda Item 3. 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West ..J+ -, -rr ·) What is the "special circumstance" in favor of granting this particular property a height variation? Even as modified, the proposal obstructs the public's enjoyment of the California Coast. Do notice that the Coastal Specific Plan was approved to defend people, neighbors, motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. This particular portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West Right of Way is described in the RPV Trails Network Plan as '.CTION ONE, Al: The Christmas Tree Cove Segment of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail and as SECTION ONE, Cl : A portion vf the Palos Verdes Drive Trail. This is also the most seaward access available as the equestrian and bicycle corridors of the California Coasta l Trail. Should you approve this, please be sure that the Conditions of Approval require that the new driveway apron comply with the TRAIL DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. (ADA route, anti-skid surface, less than 6 inch high curbs etc.) I would prefer that development in the Coasta l Zone not be granted any variances at all. SUNSHINE 310-377 -8761 Attachments 3-286 Leza Mikhail ·om: .. ent: To: Subject: Leza: Paul Tetreault < paul@agajan ianlaw.co m > Friday, October 04 , 2013 2:57 PM Planning ; Leza Mikhail RE : October 8, 2013 , PC Agenda Item 3. 3344 Pa los Verdes Drive West I have reviewed Sunshine's email of this date regarding this item coming up on our agenda Tuesday night. note that this project was approved by the PC on a 5-1 vote last year but the Coastal Commission appealed over concerns that the approved project would adversely impact v iews from PV Drive West. The Coastal Commission has apparently worked with the applicants and agreed that moving the h ouse down the slope and putting it deeper below grade would assuage their v iew concerns. That is the proposal t hat is before us Tuesday night. I would like it to be made clear that the PC has de novo autho rity t o review the project a new and is not bound by its prior approval. To accomplish the goal of keeping the house basically intact (same square footage for house, a lth ough garage is a little smaller) while lowering the ridge line by 4.23 feet the applicants wi ll be increasing the grading by 776 cubic yards to nearly 4000 cu yds. with about 3800 cu yds . of export. T ha t equals about 290 tandem axle dump truck runs. I will be asking about how this amount of grading and export compares to similar projects in this community. I note that Condition 37 states as follows: "A ll d amaged curb and gutter, sidewalk, trails, and asphalt in front o f ·1e proposed home must be removed and replaced in kind to the satisfaction o f the D irector of Pub lic Norks." What does "in front of the proposed home " mean? There are two variables there, neither are defined: "fro nt" and "home". What is the front and how far out in "front ", and what is the "home"? Sunshine raised so me concerns about the C it y's Trails Plan. Please address her comments w it h respect to this project. Finally, in the ev ent this comes up again, I would al so like to know in the future when there is Coastal Commission revi ew what that commission has done in the past and its historical concerns regarding like appli cations. Thank you for your work on thi s project. I will see you Tuesday night. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Sunsh ineRPV @aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:36 PM To: pc@rpv.com; planninq@rpv .com; aram@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv .com Subject: October 8, 20 13, PC Agenda Item 3. 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West MEMO from SUNSHINE T O: RPV Planning Commission and Staff ~E: October 8, 20 13, PC Agenda Item 3. 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West 1 Attachments 3-287 What is the "special circumstance" in favor of granting this particular property a height variation? Even as modified, the proposal obstructs the public's enjoyment of the California Coast. Do notice that the Coastal Specific Plan was approved to defend people, neighbors, motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. lhis particular portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West Right of Way is described in the RPV Trails Networ k Plan as SECTION ONE, Al: The Christmas Tree Cove Segment of t he Palos Verdes Loop Trail and as SECTION ONE , Cl: A portion of the Palos Verdes Drive Trail. This is also the most seaward access avai lable as the equestrian and bicycle corridors of the California Coastal Trail. Shou ld you approve this , please be sure that the Conditions of Approval require that the new driveway apron comply with the TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. (ADA route, anti- skid surface, less than 6 inch high curbs etc .) I would prefer that development in the Coastal Zone not be granted any variances at all. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 2 Attachments 3-288 Leza Mikhail om: ... ent: To : Subject: Joel Roja s Saturday, October 0 5, 2013 12:03 PM Leza M i khail FW: P.C. Agenda Item# 3 -Public Hea ri ng on 3344 PV Dr. West - From: ezstevens@cox.net [ezstevens@cox.net) Sent : Saturday, October 05, 2013 12 :5 1 AM To : Plan ni ngCommi ssion Cc : CC Subjec t : RE: P.C. Agenda Item# 3 -Public Hearing on 3344 PVD r. West- Sub ject : suggestion on public view issue Dear Planning Commiss ion, Regarding your P.C. Agenda Item# 3 -Public Hearing on 3344 PVDr . West- Why allow any intrusion into the public 's view of the ocean from PV Drive West? I wish you would just have them grade down lower to preserve the view fo r the public ! 'e are slow ly l osing our Magnificent Open Coastal View Co rri dor every yea r to these type of build i ngs & th is must be stopped . The ne xt thing that hap pe ns is they ag r ee to not let the trees get above 16 fee t & then nobody polices the tree as it grows & no one trims it & there goes the view for future generations to enjoy . The builders also install a nice 2 foot wrought iron fence that leaves a nice open v iew & then they plant a hedge on bo th sides to eventually block the view or they plant larger trees on the down si de that are allowed to grow o ut of control & there goes the view. This sort of disregard fo r the Public's r ight to protect the open view corridor for future generations t o enjoy must be stopped. So please Help and put some rea l teeth into the future agreem en ts to prese rve wha t litt le view re mains along our 7 m i le City Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to en joy . Ed ward Stevens 45 Year resident in Seaview Attachments 3-289 Leza Mikhail rom: ~ent: To : Subject: Joel Rojas Monday, October 01 , 2013 11:26 AM Leza Mikhail FW : Why allow any intrusion into the publi c's view of the ocean fro m PV Drive Wes t ? From: Chonita Holmes [mailto:septover@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 11:17 AM To: PlanningCommission Subject: Why allow any intrusion into the public's view of the ocean from PV Drive West ? Why allow any intrusion into the public's view of the ocean from PV Drive West ? 1 Attachments 3-290 Leza Mikhail ·om: ... ent: To: Subject: Leza Mikhail Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:48 AM Leza Mikhail (lezam@rpv.com) FW: Keep our View From: Irene Henrikson [mailto:irene.henrikson@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 7:04 PM To: Greg Pfost Subject: Re: Keep our View The specific project is as follows: The RPV Planning Commission Agenda for Tuesday includes a Public Hearing for a revised proposal for a huge house at 3344 PVDr. West within the Coastal Zone, and subject to Coastal Commission approval. The structure height and the landscaping as proposed would impair views for the public from Palos Verdes Dr. West, which includes a segment of the California Coastal Trail and should be protected as a visual corridor according to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. If the height is allowed to be above the Coastal Specific Plan limitations ( intruding into the 2 degree-down-arc from the viewing station of the street), that could set a 'recedent for all the coastal areas including the building heights on the Trump property dCross from our SeaView community! 1 ! We need to speak up about this. Irene and Paul Henrikson From: Greg Pfost Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 4:07 PM To: Irene Henrikson Subject: RE: Keep our View Hel lo M r . and Mrs. Henrikson- Thanks for your email ... ! am curious as to if your email was addressing a particular project that was before the Commission or a comment in general. If it is addressed to a specific project, can you please tell me which? Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director ti:'.~City of ltaucho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawlhorne Blvd . nancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 J 10) 544 -5228 Attachments 3-291 From: Irene Henrikson [mailto:irene.henrikson@cox . net] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:26 PM To: PlanningCommission 4"1Jbject: Keep our View We need our view as it is slowly being taken away by construction of various sorts. Thank you, Irene and Paul Henrikson 32404 Searaven Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 Attachments 3-292 Leza Mikhail ·om: Jent: To: Cc: Subject: Lenee Bi lski <leneeb ilski@hotmail.com> Monday, October 07, 2013 7:52 PM Pl an n ingCommission Leza Mikhail; Joel Rojas; CC P.C. Agenda item #3 -Protect Views along PV D rive CASE NO. ZON20 12-00141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Dear RPV Planning Commissio ners, Oct.8,2013 I am opposed to appro val of this revision because the public's view from Palos Verdes D r .. West will be blocked as the structure is still too high. Palos Verdes Drive West is a public viewing station accord ing to the RPV Coastal S pecific Plan, our LCP . Please vote for Alternative No . 1. Where are the photos of the site with the si lho uette ? I see none in the report. Today I passed by and t he flag gin g is down -probably blown down by the recent strong winds. I read t hat contrary to the notice I first received abo ut thi s site, this property IS in an ar ea that can be a p pea led to the Coasta l Commission. And it has been. On p. 32 of 111 the CA Coastal Commiss ioners ' r eas on for the appeal is stated: "As ap prov ed, the proposed project projects into the view corridor [Palo s V erd es Dr. West] and is th erefo r e inconsi stent with the visual protection poli cies of the certified LCP." Th at's the issue -observing the 2-degree down arc height limits of our LCP. don't see anything in the appeal that directs the owner to "minimize" the view obstruction. T he revision does not lo wer the house enough according to the Coastal Appeal. Addi tional grad in g where the house would be lo cated i s needed to comply with the 2-degree down arc from the viewing stat ion . Grading down even if there are rocks there is w hat is needed and feasi bl e Gust more costly I am to ld). Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading for th e P .C.-approved project only 1,28 1 cy was for the home. How much grading is for this r evised h ome de s ign? T he latest letter from Coastal staff does not appear to be a "decision". (see p g. 21 of 11 1 in staff report). The appeal has not b een heard in front of the C oastal Commission . The structure h ei ght and the landscaping as proposed would impair views fo r the publi c from Palos Verdes Dr. West, whi ch includ es a segment of the California Coastal Trail. PVD ri ve shou ld be protected as a visual corridor accord ing to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan (pg. C-9 am.! p g. C-11, 12) and according to the Commissioners' Appeal. The "specifi c" visual corridors staff ment ions th at are in the LCP refer to specific vi stas such as a li gh thou se or promontory as th e focal point. Palos Verdes Drive is described as the "primary visual corridor accessible to the greatest number of v iewers" in the Coastal Specific P lan. A "co ntinu ous v ie wi ng station." P lease clarify: where is the v iewing statio n ? Palos Verdes Drive i s mainly used by motor vehicles. The public v iew i ncludes viewing from a car. I don't see any calculati ons based o n the v iew from a passenger sedan. (not an SUV or truck) I only read about a pedestrian eye-level height of 5 feet. Some children a re not 5 feet :g h. The Coastal Specific Plan under Visual Corridor s refers to views from the vehicular corri dor of Palos Verd es Drive that should be protected (pg. C-9) Shouldn't the publi c's eye-level while t rave lin g in a car be t he basis fo r the measurements? Attachments 3-293 The city has a poli cy . This development should be consistent with the policy, the certified LCP. The residential design appears to be very attractive, though it is extremely wide across the site. How many feet _.;ross is it as seen from PV Dr. West? How wide is the lot? The Landscaping limitation does not address keeping the height of foliage next to the existing wrought iron fence low enough to allow continued light and air and viewing through it. Please check on this . Please identify view obstruction as being inconsistent with the LCP and vote for Alternative No . 1. Further limit the height, limit the foliage height. If the height is allowed to be above the Coastal Specific Plan limitations ( intruding into the 2 degree-down-arc from the street viewing station), that could set a precedent for all the coastal areas . Also please limit the foliage height next to the fence so it will not impact the public's view . How far from the fence should the foliage be trimmed ? How do we prevent the owner from growing a view-obstructing hedge behind the fence? Please discuss. Thank you for your service to RPV ! Slncerely, Lenee Bilski 5 0 year resident 2 Attachments 3-294 Leza Mikhail ":rom : .:ient: To: Cc: ezstevens@cox.net Monday, Octobe r 07, 2013 9:56 PM paul@agajanian law.com Leza Mikhail; CC Subject: Planning Commissio n item # 3 -CASE NO. ZON2012-00141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Dear Paul Tetreault & City Council M embers, I totally agree with the excellent explanation that Lenee wrote you. She brought up an excellent point that has been totally ignored by the City to preserve the open Coastal View corridor along the wrought iron fence that was required to preserve the open view & then the homeowners or developers of the property allow the foliage to cover the fence & then plant trees on the other side & allow them to grow to completely block all future view. This is a very important issue for this project & all past & future projects. It is the Cities responsibility to set up a system in perpetuity to protect the view for future generations to enjoy. This issue has been ignored by Trump & Terranea & numerous developments along PvDr S & W including along Crest between Hawthorne & Crenshaw-along Hawthorne between PV DR S & Crest. fhe future Generations will hopefully be able to enjoy the View . They will not have any idea how hard we fought to help maintain the view. Edward Stevens 45 Year Seaview Resident across from Trump ****************************************************************************** Planning Commission item # 3 CASE N O. ZON2012-00141: 3344 PALOS V ERDES DRIVE WEST Oct. 8, 2013 Dear RPV Planning Commissioners, I am opposed to approval of this revision because the public's view from Palos Verdes Dr.. West will b e blocked as the structure is still too high. Palos Verdes Drive West i s a public viewing station according to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan, our LCP. Please vote for Alternative No . 1. Where are the photos of the site with the silhouette ? I see none in the report. Today I passed by the site and the flagging is down -probably blown down by the recent strong winds. I read that contrary to the notice I first received about this site, this property IS in an area that can be appealed to the Coastal Commission. And it has been. In p . 32of111 the CA Coastal Commissioners' reason for the appeal is stated: As approved, the proposed project projects into the view corridor [from Palos Verdes Dr. West] and is therefore inconsistent with the v isual protection policies of the certified LCP .11 T hat's th e i ss ue -observing the 2-degree down arc height limits of our LCP . 1 Attachments 3-295 I don't see anything in the appeal that directs the owner to "minimize " the view obstruction. The revision does not lower the house enough according to the Coastal Appeal. '\dditional grading where the house would be located is needed to comply with the 2-degree down arc from th e ,1iewing station. Grading down even if there are rocks there is what is needed and feasible Uust more costly I am told). Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading for the P .C.-approved project only 1,281 cy was for the home. How much grading is for this revised home design? The latest letter from Coastal staff does not appear to be a "decision". (see pg. 21 of 111 in staff report). The appeal has not been heard in front of the Coastal Commission. The structure height and the landscaping as proposed would impair views for the public from Palos Verdes Dr. West, which includes a segment of th e California Coastal Trail. PVDrive sho uld be protected as a visual corridor according to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan (pg. C-9 and pg . C-11 , 12) and according to the Commissioners' Appeal. The "specific" visua l corridors staff mentions that are in the LCP refer to specific vistas such as a lighthouse or promontory as the focal point. Palos Verdes Drive is described as the "primary visual corridor accessible to the greatest number of viewers" in the Coastal Specific Plan. A "continuous viewing station." Please clarify: where is the viewing station? Palos Verdes Drive is mainl y used by motor vehicles. The public view includes viewing from a car. I don't see any calculations based on the view from a passenger sedan. (not an SUV or truck) I only read about a pedestrian eye-level height of 5 feet. Some children are not 5 feet high. The Coastal Specific Plan under Visual Corridors refers to views from the vehicular corridor of Pa los Verdes Drive that should be protected (pg. C-9) Shouldn't the public 's eye-level while traveling in a car be the basis for the measurements? . he city has a policy. Thi s development s hould be consistent with the policy, the certified LCP . The residential design appears to be very attractive, though it is extremely wide across the site. How many feet across is it as seen from PY Dr. West? How wide is the lot? The Landscaping limitation does not address keeping the height of foliage next to the existing wrought iron fe nce low enough to allow continued light and air and viewing through it. Please check on this. Please identify view obstruction as being inconsistent with the LCP and vo te for Alternative No. 1. Further limit the height, limit the foliage height. If the height is allowed to be above the Coastal Specific Plan limitations (intruding into the 2 degree-down-arc from the street viewing station), that could set a precedent for all the coastal areas. Also please limit the foliage height next to the fence so it will not impact the public's view. How far from the fence should the foliage be trimmed ? How do we prevent the owner from growing a view-obstructing hedge behind the fence? Please discuss. Thank you for your service to RPV ! Sincerely, Lenee Bilski 50 year resident 2 Attachments 3-296 Leza Mikhail '=rom: Sent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas Tuesday, October 08 , 2013 6:47 AM Leza Mikhail FW : 3344 PV Drive West Project From : Tiffany [leetiffany@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 4:06 PM To : PlanningCommission Subject : Re : 3344 PV Drive West Project Hello, We are concerned residents of RPV. Why are you allowing an intrusion into the public's v iew of the ocean from PV Drive West? Thank you, Tiffany and Michael Blumenthal Attachments 3-297 Leza Mikhail ~rom: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Tuesday, October 08 , 2013 6:49 AM Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: Case No . Zon2012 -00141: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West From : Elizabeth Sax [saxhousel@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9:59 PM To : PlanningCommission; CC Subject: Case No. Zon2012-00141: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West I am writing to express my opposition to the approva l of the revision because the public's view from Palos Verdes Drive West will be impaired since the structure is too high . The revision does not lower the home enough . Additional grading where the home would be located is needed to comply with the 2-degree down arc from the viewing station. If the height is allowed to be above the Coastal Specific Plan limitations (intruding into the 2 degree-down-arc from the street viewing station), it could set a precedent for all the coastal areas. Also please limit the foliage height next to the fence so it will not impact the public's view. Please determine how far from the fence the foliage should be trimmed? How do we prevent the owner from growing a view-obstructing hedge behind the fence? Your consideration of these concerns is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Elizabeth Sax Seaview Resident 1 Attachments 3-298 Leza Mikhail om: .,,ent : To: Subject: Leza Mikhail Tuesday, October 08 , 2013 10:04 AM Leza M ikhail FW : View issue - From: BJ Patterson [mailto:bj.patterson@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:52 AM To: PlanningCommission; CC Subject: View issue - Regarding Planning Commission item# 3 CASE NO. ZON2012-00141: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST One question for your commission/council : 1-1--, . ·w c.. _ __ ) What is the point of having view covenants if they are and continue to be consistently ignored by your bod i es , even in the face of significant opposition by the very citizens you are entrusted to represent? BJ Patterson 3951 Pa los Verdes Dr. S ""'an cho Palos Verdes Attachments 3-299 Leza Mikhail om: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Tuesday, October 08 , 2013 2:24 PM Leza Mikhail Subject: Attachments: FW: 3344 PV Drive West Project Public Notice.pdf This should be considered late correspondence -----Original Message ----- From : Leza Mikhail Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:22 AM To : RAV I KHOSLA Cc: Lo uie Tomaro (louiet@tomaro .com ); Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost Subject : RE : 3344 PV Drive West Project Hello Ravi, I understand your concern. I would assume that the word "intrusion" is coming from the public only . I ha ve attached t he Public Notice that was published in the Peninsula News and sent to the neighbors within a 500 foot rad ius , which is t he requirement by law and the development code. !Za Mikhail Associate Planne r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/plann i ng/pla n ning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Orig inal Message----- Fr o m : HAVI KHOSLA [mailto :mail@ravikhosla .com ] Sent: Tuesday, Octobe r 08, 2013 10:04 AM To: Le za Mikhai l Cc: Lou ie Tomaro (louiet@tomaro .com) Subje ct: Re : 3344 PV Dri ve West Project Hi Li za, I see that all the emails say t he same thing ... Why are you allowing an intrusion ?? /hat did the city publish that says that we are " intrusion " ??? I am really concern because where were th ese people when we had PC I public hea r ing last year. The house is lowe re d by 4.5 feet from original approval and opening public views .. As enforced by Coasta l Comi ssion . 1 Attachments 3-300 I am getting the feeling that the this time the city notification is making public and neighbors more concerned because of the language of the notice is depicting that we are INTRUSION in public views. Will wait to hear back from you. ~ds Rav i Sent from my iPhone On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpv.com> wrote: > Here is another comment le tter. > > > Leza Mikhail >Associate Planner > > City o f Rancho Palos Verdes > Planning Department > 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm > (310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f > lezam@rpv.com > > >-----Orig inal Message----- > From : Joel Rojas >Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:47 AM >To : Leza Mikhail > Subject: FW : 3344 PV Drive West Project > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- > From: Tiffany [leetiffany@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 4:06 PM >To: PlanningCommission >Subject: Re: 3344 PV Drive West Project > >Hello, > >We are concerned res idents of RPV. Why are you allowing an intrusion into the public's view of the ocean from PV Drive West? > >Th an k you, >Tiffany and Michael Blumenthal > > 2 Attachments 3-301 September 16, 2013 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday , October 8, 2013, at 7 :00 PM at Hesse Park Community Building , 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard , Rancho Palos Verdes , to consider: REVISION TO COASTAL PERMIT, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141): A request to amend the Planning Commission 's previous approval of a new two-story residence on a vacant , downsloping lot. The proposed project is being revised to address concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission as the City's decision was appealed by the California Coastal Commission . The project is being revised to be lower on the site to increase views from Palos Verdes Drive West. As a result , there will be an increase of 77 4 cubic yards of grading (3 ,206 cubic yards previously approved) to accommodate a 10 ,382 square foot residence and 977 square foot garage . The residence will maintain the previously approved square footage and architectural design , with the exception of the highest ridgeline which will be reduced 4 .23' from the previously approved height of 276 .73 ' to a new maximum ridgeline of 272 .5'. In addition to reducing the overall ridgeline by 4.23 ', the front setback of the residence will be increased 16 ', from the previously approved 42' front setback to a revised 58' front yard setback. LOCATION: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST PROPERTY OWNER: RAVIKHOSLA APPLICANT: TOMARO ARCHITECTURE All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and give testimony . If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, please communicate those thoughts in writing to our Staff by October 3, 2013. By doing so, you will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration for the Staff analysis of the project. All correspondence received after this date will be given separately to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting . Written materials, including emails , submitted to the C ity are public records and may be posted on the City 's website . In addition, City meetings may be televised and may be accessed through the City's website . Accordingly, you may wish to omit personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the public record regarding an agendized item . Attachments 3-302 REVISION TO COASTAL PERMIT, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REV I EW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141} 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 PAGE 2 Only those who have submitted written comments at or prior to , and/or given testimony at the public hearing will receive notification of the decision . The Planning Commission 's decision may then be appealed , in w riting , to the City Counci l. The appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) days of the Planning Commission 's decision. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific ac t ion being requested by the appellant. In accordance with the Municipal Code , the applicant may have attempted to contact you prior to submitting an application to inform you of his/her intentions and allow you to view the building plans for this project. If the applicant did not contact you , or you would like the opportunity to review these plans further , they are on file in the Community Development Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard , Rancho Palos Verdes, and are available for review from 7 :30 AM to 5 :30 PM Monday through Thursday , and from 7 :30 AM to 4:30 PM Friday . If you have any questions concerning this application or the City's coastal permit or grading review procedures , please contact Associate Planner, Leza Mikhail at (310) 544-5228 , or via e-mail at lezam@rpv .com . Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director NOTE: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE : If you challenge this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raises in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the public review period described in this notice. Attachments 3-303 Leza M ikha il om: .,ent: To: Subject: jessica <jessboop@cox.net> Tuesday, October 08 , 2013 2:4 3 PM Pl ann ingCommission ; CC; Leza M ikhail; Joel Roja s P.C. Agenda item no. 3 Dear RPV Plann i ng Commissione rs , Regard ing 3344 Palo s Verdes Driv e W est, Ca se No . ZON2012 -00141 I a m alwa ys interested in projects that are south of Palos Verdes Drive West o r South as thi s is a very important p rotec ted view for the residents and tourists .. those who come to Palos Verdes to enjoy our 7 1/2 mile coastline and all the views of nature that luckily are afforded us; these v iews have been protected since the City was started and before for all to enjoy. The Coastal Specific Plan adopted, December 19, 1978, states in Resolution No 78 -81, A Resolution of the City Council making an environmental findings and A Ge neral Plan Amendment N0.3, and the Coastal Specific Plan of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (see inside back page of the Coastal Specific Plan)., states in Section 4 : With respect to the potential significant environmental effects identified in the EIR , the City Council finds as follows : 1 . The EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect the impact of views. This potential significant e nvironmental effect will be mitigated as follows : "VIEW CORRIDORS Will BE CREATED WITH RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES ." The "founding rathers " knew we had something rare here, a fabulous coastline to stop and view the ocean, the w aves, the whal es , t he dolph i ns , the boats, the pelicans div ing for dinner and all to be watched from a passing automobile, a hike, a walk, a j og , a bike, a picnic area, a beach, etc. Now it appears, that we are over reaching. What was once protected for all, is no w only protected for a pedestrian, one who is 5 ft . tall or more! What happened to children's views, those of us in cars, people shorter than 5 ft??? Then you all ask for 80% light and air fencing but allow those fences to have vegetation behind it that blocks out the 80% light and air!!!!!!! How did this happen? All of Palos Verdes Drive South and West was on ce a "view corridor",all 7 1/2 miles ! We have changed our total 7 1/2 mile view corridors to only certain view corridors, to developments that are so high, in this case, the revised project height of 272.5 when the sidewalk curb is 268 ! We have gone from a protected "coastline" view of the water AND ALL THAT WAS LISTED ABOVE , TO A PROTECT ED "HORIZON" LINE WHERE THE SKY AND THE OCEAN MEET!!!! WE DO NOT EVEN PROTECT THE VIEW OF THE OCEAN ANYMORE!!!!!!! W E HAVE GONE FROM PROTECTING ANYONE'S VIEW OF THE "HORIZON", NOT THE "OCEAN ", TO THOSE OF YOU W HO ARE 5 FT . TALL OR MORE . WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REST OF US! or PEOPLE DRIVING? VE HAVE GONE TO PROTECTING VIEWS FROM ONE SPOT IN ONE ROOM OF THE HOUSE FOR PEOPLE WHO PURCHASED TH EIR HOMES FOR THEIR VIEWS FROM All OR MANY OF THE ROOMS OF THEIR HOUSE!! Attachments 3-304 ThE DE:.f·INITION OF "SIGNIFICANT" HAS MORPHED INTO WHOEVER HAS THE MOST "BUCKS" AND FIGHTING POWER. WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR UTILE COMMUNITY? ONCE YOU ACCEPT THESE CHANGES, PASS A PROJECT THAT IS ·--;REGIOUS, THIS BECOMES THE NORM .. USED BY THE NEXT DEVELOPER OR HOME OWNER TO SAY, "WELL THIS WAS _,ONE AND AGREED TO BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS CASE NO ZON2012-00141, SO WHY SHOULDN'T WE TRY; this will be president setting!. This will also, as in legal cases, become the basis for many suits, case law. I am not opposed to this development, I am opposed to allowing our coastline to be obliterated for the public . We are not a community of "horizons" we are a community of "ocean views! Please have the developer rework this plan to lower the project. Remember when the other developers or homeowners see this deci sion they too will want to change w hat th ey ha v e and no one will have an ocean view!!! Thank you for you r service and logic . Let us not be a Manhatten Beach where the only view is the first house towards the ocean and rooftops of the others! Sincerely, Jessica Leeds 2 Attachments 3-305 Leza Mikhail _From: mt: To: Subject: Jason Sikola <jsikola@icloud .com> Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:56 PM Leza Mikhail; lezam@rpv.org Planning commission 3 I do not agree with the revised plans and feel they still fail to follow the coastal specific building codes . Jason SIKOLA. Sen t from my iPhone 1 Attachments 3-306 Leza Mikh a il f rom: mt: To : Cc: Subje ct: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Henrickson Joel Rojas Tuesda y, Oc t ober 08, 2013 4:22 PM Irene He nrikson Leza Mikh ail RE: We need o ur view! We will provid e your comments t o the City's Planning Co mmission. I just want to note that Staff and the Planning Commission are well aware of t h e height limitations i n the City's Coast al Specific Plan i nten ded to protect public views of the ocean. Because of those lim itat ions, t h e proposed house at 3344 PVDW was approved by the PC last year with a reduced ridg eli ne so as to min im i ze view obst ruction from PVDW. However, the Pla n n i ng Com m iss io n's decision was appealed by t he Coastal Commissi on because they felt that the house's r idgeline co uld be reduced even further . The architect was able t o lower t he ridge li ne more to satisfy th e Coastal Commissio n and now the Plann ing Commission is being asked to co nc u r with t h e re d uced hei ght. I ho pe t h is clarifies t h e item that is b efo re t he Commission th is evening. Sincerely, Joe l Rojas Community Deve lo pme nt Directo r From: I rene Henriks on [mailto:irene.henrikson @cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 7 :05 PM To: Joel Rojas Subject: Re : We need our view! The specific project is as follows : The RPV Planning Commission Agenda for Tuesday includes a Public Hearing for a revised proposal fo r a huge house at 3344 PVDr . West within the Coastal Zone, and subject to Coastal Commission approval. The structure height and the landscaping as prop osed would impair views for the public from Palos Verdes Dr. West, which includes a segment of the California Coastal Trail and should be protected as a visual corri dor according to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. If the he ight i s allowed to be above the Coasta l Specific Plan limitations ( intruding into the 2 degree-down-arc from the viewing station of the street), that could set a prece dent for all the coastal areas includ i ng the building heights on the Trump p r ope r ty across from the SeaView community !!! We need t o speak up about th is. rrene and Paul Henrikson From: Jo el Roja s Sent: Monday, Octobe r 07, 2013 4 :00 PM Attachments 3-307 T o : Carolyn Lehr Cc : mailto:irene .henrikson @cox .net ; CC Subj ect: RE : We ne ed our view! 1r . and M rs . Henricks on, Please let me know if you r co nc e rn s are re la t ed to a specific project. This w i ll all ow th e appro pri at e st aff perso n to foll ow up wit h yo u to di scuss yo ur co ncerns . Joe l Ro j as Community Deve lopmen t Direct or Fro m : Carolyn Lehr Sent: Monday, Octobe r 07 , 2013 3 :32 PM T o: Joel Rojas Cc: irene henrikson (irene .henrikson@cox.net); CC Subject: FW : We need our view! Dear Mr. and Ms. Henrikson , I am forwarding your comments to Community Development Director Joel Rojas for follow up . I am not sure whether you have spoken to him previously about your view issues , but he and his staff are in the best position to assist you. Thank you for making us aware of your concerns. arol y n Lehr City Manager From: Irene Henrikson [mailto :irene.henrikson@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:27 PM To: CC Subject: We need ou r view ! We need our view as it i s slowly being taken aw ay by construction of various sorts. Thank you, Irene and Paul Henrikson 32404 Searaven Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 Attachments 3-308 Louie Tomaro From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leza Mikhail (LezaM@rpv.com) Monday, January 28, 2013 10:23 AM Louie Tomaro Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Ara Mlhranian 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Coasta l Appea l. Hello Louie , I rece ived your voicemail from Friday afternoon requesting additionaJ infonnation from Staff regarding other approvals that have been processed near the subject property (3344 Palos Verdes Drive West) which is under consideration for appeal by the Coastal Commission. Specifically , you requested to know when other specific properties with homes were approved , whether the y were processed as appealable/n on~appealable, if the Coastal Commiss ion was notified of the other property approvals , and whether the projects were appealed by or to th e Coastal Commission. You requested this brief information for 6 Marguerite, 30101 PVDW (also known as 3300 PYDW), and the subject property 3344 PVDW. You noted that you hoped to have this information by Monday to prepare a letter to Coastal Commission staff. I've noted the information below . I ) 6 Marguerite : a. Approved in 2000 by the Planning Commission as a 2-story b. Processed as Non-appealable c. Coastal Commi ssion was notified d. Application was not appealed by or to the Coastal Commission 2) 30101 PVDW (also known as 33()() PVDW): a. Approved in 1993 as a 2-story ( 13,736 square foot residence with 23' height limit) b. Processed as appealable c. Coastal Commission was notified d. Application was not appealed by or to the Coastal Commission e. Appears that another request was processed simultaneously with this application (PC Resolut ion No. 94-9), whereby the Planning Commission required Lunada Point to remove all trees and shrubs that were located within their open space property (Lot # 26 within Tract 40640), along the northeastern portion of the open space property and extending 200 feet ... to open up and maintain views along PVDW . 3) J344 PVDW : a. Original home located on this property was approved to be demolished twice (Sept. 2001 and June 2005) -Coastal Commission was notified of the demolition applications -both approvals were processed as non-appealable b. Previously app roved residence in 1999 a5 a 9,697 square foot residence wi th a maximum ridgeline of 276' i. Cummt proposal has a ridgeline of276.73' c. Previous project approved in l 999 was processed as Non-appealable d. Coastal Commission was notified of 1999 approval e. Application from 1999 was not appealed by or to the Coastal Commission All the files for the above-listed properties are available to view by the public or make copies of any of information supporting the above infonnation. At this time, the Coastal Commission Staff has not requested to view this information . Attachments 3-309 CDYf{~?Dn OJ net_ Be-twt:-e n A f? \ i c 0-Yl + of,J. Cea '3,tR \ c orY1YY1 I s 'S 1 () (\ . s IA b ifY)' +\( d 1u sto.P.fl-011 oc_,-t-0, ?o \3 RECEIVED oct o.s 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attachments 3-310 C ITY OF RAN CHO PALOS VERDES '· :(:f\·1MI tNll 'i llF.VFI ()I >fvJFN1 [)[l'.-\k'T~1CNT July 9 , 20 12 NO TI C E NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commissio n of t he C ity of Ran c ho Pa los Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 , at 7 :00 PM at Hesse Park Community Building , 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ranch o Palo s Ve rdes, to cons ider : NON-APPEAL ABL E COASTAL PERMIT, M AJOR GRADING P ERMIT & SITE PLAN REVI EW (CASE NO. ZON20 12-00 141): A request to construct a new 10 ,509 square foot, two-stCJ• y residence with a 1,027 square foot garage on a 43.484 square foot downsloping lot. The overall height of the residence will measure 15 '-1 O" as measured from the h ighest ridgeline {elev. 277.45') to the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 261 .60') and 24'-6112'' as measured from highest ridgeline {elev . 277.45') to the lowest foundation/slab covered by the structure (elev . 252 .86') . The project also includes a total of 3 ,680 cubic yards of cut and 298 cubic yards of fill. LOCATION: 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST PROPERTY OWNER : RAVIKHOSLA APPLICANT: TOMARO ARCHITECTURE All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and g ive testimony . If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, p lease communicate those thoughts in writing to our Staff by July 26, 2012 . By doing so , you w ill ensure that your comments are taken into consideration for the Staff analysis of the project. All correspondence received after this date will be given separately to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting . Written materials , including emails, submitted to the City are public records and may be posted on the City's website . In addit ion , City meetings ma y be televised and may be accessed through the City's website . Accord ingly , you may wish to omit personal information from your oral presentation or written materi als as it may become part of the public record regarding an agendized item . Only those who have submitted written comments at or p ri or to , and/or given tes timony at the public hearing will receive notification of the deci s ion . The Planning Commission 's decision may then be appealed , in writing, to the City Coun ci l. T he appeal letter m ust be fi led within fifteen (15) days of the Planning Commiss ion's decisi on and mu st be accompanied by a $2,275 appeal fee . T he appeal sha ll set fo rth t h e grou nds for appea l and any spe ci fic action being requested by the appellant. Attachments 3-311 NON-APPEALABLE COASTAL PERMIT, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN• ~IEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) 3344 PALOS V ERDES DRIVE WEST JULY 9, 2012 PAGE 2 In accordance with the Municipal Code, the applicant may have attempted to contact you prior to submitting an applicatio n to inform you of his/her inte ntions and all ow you to view the building plans for th is project. If the applicant did not contact you , or you would like the opportunity to rev iew these plans further, they are on file in the Community Development Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes , and are available for review from 7:30 AM to 5 :30 PM Monday through Thursday , and from 7 :30 AM to 4 :30 PM Friday . If you have any q uestions concerning this application or the City's coasta l permit or grading review procedures, please contact Associate Planne r, Leza Mikha il at (310) 544-5228, or via e-mail at lezam@rpv .com . Community Development Director NOTE : STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTI CE : If you challenge this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raises In written correspondence delivered to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the public review period described In this notice. Attachments 3-312 September 26 . 2012 Ravi Khosla 903 10tti St. CITY OF Manhattan Beach , CA 90266 RAN CHO PALOS VERDES 1 '.l JMM I 1N11 ·, [}_ vr-1 1 :r 'f' lCN i IJt:' 'Al~ rrvi1-r---l Su bje ct: Approval of a S ite Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No . ZON2012-00141 ), for property located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Dear Mr. and Mrs . Khosla : The Planning Commission has approved your request to construct a new two -story res idence and grading on a vacant lot . This approval is subject to the conditions of approval set forth in P .C. Resolution No. 2012-1 6 . Attached is a copy of the Notice of Decision , Resolution. and Cond itions of Approval for your fries . The appeal period for the approval expires on October 10, 2012 , after which you may submit plans into Building and Safety Plan Check . Additionally , I have attached the Certification of Acceptan ce of Project Conditions of Approval. This certification should be signed and returned to me by both property owners, but shall be submitted no later than January 4, 2013, but before submitting plans into Building and Safety Plan Check. Lastly, I would like to note that the City is always interested in improving its customer service and to that end has created a Customer Service Survey (attached). If you have any comments on your experience working with me or suggestions for improving our process , please complete the attached survey and return it to the City. It has been a pleasure assisting you through this process . If you have any questions , feel free to call me at (310) 544-5228 . S,in~rely, V4 ) L ·' {/l).1 L '(') Leza Mikh~ ,/ {. ~/ Associat@._ Planner CC : Tomaro Architectu re / 2617 N . Sepulveda Blvd . I Manhattan Beach , CA 90266 r1 1 (11Jl\;\U-lc 11~.-il f·~l \ll ,J..'.\f'h JI· 1·· ... ,·.\1 .. I ll -\'•I ,,' ltl, 1 ... \'1.':N• ... '.•'•· 1r-1.>1 -· 1 ·-u ·,11\•'.l'J •':'tt\J j•,..i J·,· ·~· .. .i .1!11:r· ,,,·,\j -1 Jf,1-1i11·,·1 111 ...... ,.,,1 "l'Ji..l\f.'l'J' "' ...... j f\ \II I 'l \,'~N:·. '"'I J '\ I r,· ',\ 1,•, ',\ l '\I I·,\ I I 'I I•' I •(\1 I ,• ' Attachments 3-313 CITVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES , ;(1MMt N11' , i· \·l::Ll )I 'M EI\ i urP.l.l<rMENT September 25, 2012 NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has approved a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit to allow t he construct ion of a new home a vacant downsloping lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. ZON2012- 00141 ). LOCATION: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Khosla Said approval allows tr.e construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,027 square foo t garage, which lies within the C ity's Coastal Specific Plan district . In addit io n , th is approval allows 2,988 cubic yards of cut. 218 cubic yards of fill , and four (4) associated retain i ng walls on the project, as depicted on the Planning Commission approved p l ans . This approval is subject to the conditions of approval set forth in P .C . Resolut ion No . 2012-16 In granting this coastal permit, the following findings were made · 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Coastal Specific Pla n: and, 2 . That the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road , is in conformance with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. This decision may be appealed , in writing, to the City Council within f ifteen (1 5) calendar days of the date of this notice, by October 10 , 2012. The appeal letter must set forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant. If you ha ve any questions regarding this permit , please contact Associ ate P lanner , Leza Mikhail at (310) 544-8 or ~ ail atlezam@rpv.com. /\ cc: Applicant and Landowner Interested Parties List (self-addressed/stamped envelopes ) California Coastal Commission Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association / 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 St iassn i Family I 3400 Pa lo s Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verde s, CA 90275 Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Ra ncho Palos Verdes . CA 9027 5 Marcos Ehab / 7416 Via Lorado I Rancho Pa los Verdes . CA 90275 Jas on Sikola I 7369 Berry Hill Dnve I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 11o)'l .~l ·fl.\\\ll•1•l ~'U l~l',,.l l ,l,'.\1~.f 1'1 ",llf'--i'.1 h'ltf ... I.\ 111,.·l 1 1.1• 1 (': \l"··11f'1c ... " • •I JI · '1f •~I '•'.._, fil I ''.l· .... 1. ll·11 \1 1 I'•11 1.' '·' ,J ·ii 11N1 .,~ ·,\11 I I lf\ · ... 1 1rt I ilfi) 1 ·1; 11·111 f 1 \'·. •1111 •,1 1 .• 1 ... \11 1•1 \l•l'1ff'·,.1·1-'f'\f ti/• ,\:~~\''',I, \lh'lll I lf•l.l•'I\ Attachments 3-314 P.C. RESOLUTION N O. 2012-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, GRADING PERMIT AND COAST AL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 101382 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,027 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE O N A VACANT DOWNSLOPING L OT . THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 2,988 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 218 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND FOUR (4) ASSOICATED RETAINING WALLS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3344 PALOS VERD ES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO ZON2012-00141). WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the property owner, Ravi Khosla, submitted app lications for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 for a Site Plan Review, Grading Pe rmit and Coastal Permit for approval to construct a new home on a vacant residential property; and , WHEREAS , on May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the applicat ion, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and , WHEREAS , on July 9, 2012, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 was deemed complete by Staff; and , WHEREAS, pursuant to the provis ions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Publi c Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines , California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested applications would have a significant effect on the environment and , therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(a); a nd , WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, at which time the public hearing was continued to September 25, 2012 to allow Staff and the Applicant time to research any benefits of reducing the proposed ridgeline by 1 '-9" and any reduction in overall gradng. NOW, THEREFORE , TH E PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission does hereby fi nd that a S ite Plan Review can be approved as the 10,382 square foot residence, 1 ,027 square foot garage, pool, spa and oth e r ancillary improvements (trellis, firep it, BBQ , and covered entry) comply with the required residentia l setback standards , lot coverage and maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zoning district. Specifically, the proposed improvements will meet the re qu ire d 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks , as well as the 16'/30' building height and maxim um 25 % lot coverage. l l Attachments 3-315 Section 2 : The Planning Commission m akes the following findings of fact in order to approve the Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new residence and other ancillary improvements because : A The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The underlying zoning district is single-family residenti al . The proposed grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot. A total of 3,206 cubic yards of cut will be conducted on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas . More specifically, 1 ,281 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the new residence, 663 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway. 217 cubic yards of cut to create a level courtyard at the front of the residence , and 827 cubic yards of cut at the rear of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal ameiu i.~ of dirt (218 cubic yards) within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, it appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable yard area . B . The grading would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationsh ips with nor views from the viewing area of neighboring properties as the proposed retaining walls will follow the existing contours as seen from the street and neighboring properties . A total of four (4) retaining walls are proposed around the property . Three (3) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A fourth retaining wall will reach a maximum heigh! of 3'-6 " in the rear yard of the property. Although Staff would consider the height of the retaining wall to be minimal in tenns of visual impacts , a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure. due to the fact that the applicant is excavating beneath the new residence , the finished grade will ultimately be lowered. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have been built in the same location. C . The proposed grading which accommodates the new residence and development of the single-family residential lot minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence , vehicular access . and useable rear yard area . The existing contours outside of the graded area and retaining walls will be maintained . Further. the vacant lot is zoned for residential development. and can accommodate a new single-family residen c e . D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man -made of P .C . Resolution No . 2012 -1 6 Page 2of10 Attachments 3-316 manufactured slope into natural top• 1aphy . The majority of the proposed grading wil l accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that w ill be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and hillside surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. E . The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The new residence will be proportional to the neighboring residences , therefore keeping with the original character, style and setting of the neighborhood . While the square footage of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). With regard to bulk and mass , the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side of Marguerite Drive . The orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood . Additionally , although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, the proposed architectLre and materials proposed would be consistent w ith the existing character of the immediate neighborhood . The applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish acros s the structure fa9ade . The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents . such as multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches. balconies, wrought iron balustrades, and first and second story accent molding, to break up the potential impacts of a large home. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. F . The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. G . The grad ing conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill and height of retaining walls for three (3) of the four (4) proposed retaining walls. More specifically , no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created . In fact. the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot. adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. The construction of the residence and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-10%' in order to accommodate the residence which is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home on a downslope lot that is compatible with th e surrounding neighborhood . P .C. Resolution No . 2012-16 Page 3 of 10 Attachments 3-317 H . Although a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall exceeds the allowable~ -:ghts for up slope ret aining walls on a single-family residential lot, the Planning Commission finds that the retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in Section 17.76 .040 of the Municipal Code . Approving the deviation to the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that would help support the rear and side yard of the property. Further . retaining walls are commonly found within the hillside neighborhood and approval of the retaining wall which exceeds 3'-6" would not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside topography. Additionally, the retaining wall cannot be seen from other neighboring properties or the public right-of-way . Lastly , the retaining walland grading would not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a soil engineering report. I. Pursuant to Section 17. 76 .040(E)(1 O)(e) of the RPV Municipal Code, the City is required to notify all owners of property adjacent to the subject property whenever a grading permit is granted for development in excess of that permissible under Section 17.76.040(E)(9) of the RPVMunicipal Code . As such , a Notice of Decision will be sent to the following adjacent property owners : 1) Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association/ 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2) Stiassni Family/ 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 , 3) Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab I 7416 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes . CA 90275. Section 3: The Coastal Permit to allow the construction of a new single-family residence within the Coastal Zone can be approved because : A. The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan , which contains Policy No. 8 (pg . S 1-11) that M{requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maint~in the resource ." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should be designed so as to not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicant's plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant 's lot, is at an average elevation of 268 .0 '. When implementing the guidelines of the Coastal Specific Plan. the applicant would be limited to constructing a residence with a ridgeline just above the 268 .0 curb elevation, and would require over 3 ,000 more cubic yards of grading . The Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) of the Coastal Specific Plan, "require{s] development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... ''The subject property is located on a downslope lot. whereby the Development Code allows a resi dence to be constructed at 16'-0" as measured from average elevation of the setback line (elevation 263.0') to the top of the hi ghest ridgeline . This would allow a home to be built "by-right" with a ridgeline elevation of 279 .0'. The applicant has designed a home with a maximum ridgeline of 276 .73 ', P .C . Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 4 of 10 Attachments 3-318 which is below this "by-right" height limit. Additiona lly, the applicant has provided a large front yard setback , and graded down to provide a single story facade to reduce the impacts of a large home as seen from the street. B. The subject property is not located between the sea and the fi rst public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area . Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project c omplies with the performance criterion listed the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be awroved because: A. The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property . The proposed residence will be located on a lot that was previously developed with a single-family residence prior to the City 's incorporation. As noted in the grading findings , the proposed grading outside of the construction of the residence and access is minimal and will fdlow the contours of the existing land , with the exception of one small area (less than 10% of the lot area) in the south sic~ ::ard where a 5'-0" tall retaining wall will be located . B. The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES approva l prior to issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that storm d rainage and erosio n control will not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies . Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed µ-ojact complies wit h the performance criterion fisted in the Socio-Cultura l Overlay Control District (OC-2) of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because: A. T he subject property was previously developed with a s ingle-family residential dwelling and ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and is zoned fo r residential use. The prop erty is listed as a potential area for archaeological and paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures . All "finds" will be required to be reported immediately to the Commur.ity Development Director and are to be first offered to the City for preservation . Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the prop::ised p roject complies with the performance criterion listed the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) o f Chapter 17.40 of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because : P .C . Resolution No . 2012-16 Page 5 of 10 Attachments 3-319 A. The proposed residence is located on a legal . downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home with a 16'/30' building height envelope . The project is not located within a v iew corridor as designated by the Coastal Specific Plan of the City. Furthermore, the project has been designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West by providing a large front yard setback and ridgeline below what could be building "by-right" on a downsloping lot. Furthermore . the property is located just south of a large open space area that provides ocean views for pedestrians and drivers along Palos Verdes Drive West. Construction of a new home on the previously developed property would not significantly affect the ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore , the applicant is grading down to accommodate the construction of the residence and following the natural contours to grade the yard areas within the front and rear yard of the home . Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17 .02 .040(C)(1 )(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing , setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee . no later than fifteen (15) days following September 25 , 2012, the date of the Planning Commission 's final action . Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Site Plan Review , Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141) to allow the construction of a new , two-story single-family home and associated grading and retaining walls, located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 251 h day of September 2012. by the following vote : AYES : Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin and Chairman Tetreault NOES: Vice Chairman Euenhiser ABSTENTIONS : None RECUSALS : None ABSENT: Commissioner Lewis 0 , 7 }. 1._'.~ bd;:;:.-i Peful ferealJ(t Chairman P .C . Resolution No. 2012-16 Page 6 of 10 Attachments 3-320 General Conditions : EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2012-00141 (Khosla, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive Wes~ 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, th e applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement. in writing, that they have read , understand , and agree to all conditions of approva l contained in th is Resolution . Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (9 0 ) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void . 2 . Prior to conducting any work in the public ri ght of way, such as for curb cuts , dumpsters , temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements . the applicant shall obt ai n an encroachment permit from the D i rector of Public Works. 3 . Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicab le and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal , State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4 The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor mod ifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modificatio ns will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with t he approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5 . The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards conta ined in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein , shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6 . Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approva l may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to t he revocation procedures contained in Section 17 .86 .060 of t7te City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a build in g permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17 .86.070 of th e City's Municipal Code within one year of the fina l effective date of this Resolution , approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration. a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by t !1e Director. P.C . Resolution No . 2012-1 6 Page 7 of 10 Attachments 3-321 8 . In the event th at any of t hese co .. ..iitions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricte r sta ndard shall apply. 9 . Unless otherwise designat ed in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution . 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for i mmediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, b ut not be limited to : the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or othe r household fixtures. 11 . Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7 :00 AM to 7 :00 PM , Monday thrcugi1 Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park , queue and/or idle at the project s ite or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7 :00 AM, Monday through Saturday, i n accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition . 12 . Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of25% lot coverage (24.9% proposed). 13 . The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20 ' front (50'-0" proposed to residence), 15' rear (85'-0" proposed), 5' north side (25'-0" proposed to residence) and E' east side ( 10'-9" proposed). 14. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 15 . A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained , with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance . 16 . Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56 .030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code . No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results i n direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon wh ich such light source is physically located . 17 . All grading , landscaping and construction activities shal l exercise effective dust contro l techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 18. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure , safe , neat and o rde rly m an ner. P .C . Resol ution No. 2012-16 Page 8 of 10 Attachments 3-322 Temporary portable bath rooms sha ll be provided on a co nstruction site if requ ired by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approva l of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners . 19 . Prior to th e issuance of building permits, the applic ant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and th e City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood-burning devices . 20. This approval is for a 10,382 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and a 1,027 square-foot 4 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prio r to building permi t final. 21 . The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 276 .7 3'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection . Additionally, prior to the framing of walls . a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVA TlON CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor E levat ion at 249.572'. 22 . The proposed chimney(s) may project a maximum of 2' into any requi red set back. a nd shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code . 23. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be p laced underground from an existing power pole or other point of connectio n off-site p rio r to certificate of occupancy. Project Specific Conditions: 24 . This approval includes a total of 3,206 cubic yards of grading (2,988 cub ic yards of cu t and 218 cub ic yards of fill. 25. The following four (4) retaining walls are approved : a . A downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard ranging in height from 1 '-0" to 3'-6" in overall height. b . A 5'-0 " tall upslope retaining wall located adjacent to the proposed driveway c . A 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall with in the front yard d . A 5'-0 " tall upslope retaining wall located along the south side property lin e All other planter walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 2'-11 " and shall be located at least 3'-0" from any other walls 26. The applicant shall provide and maintain landscaping to screen the 3 '-6" tall downslope retaining wall. All landscaping shall be installed and approved by the Director prior to final on the building permit for the residence . P.C. Resolution No . 2012-16 Page 9 of 10 Attachments 3-323 27 . Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall obta in all appl icab l e NPOES permits and comply with all applicable NPDES requirements . 28 . The property owner shall complywith Chapter 15 .34 (Water Efficient L andscap ing ) of the City's Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Documentation Package as defined by Chapter 15.34 . 29 . The property owner shall be prohibited from the use of herbicides to control or ki ll vegetation . 30. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the appl icant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property . The survey results shall be provided to the Community Devel opment Director or his/her designee for review prior to grading permit issuance. · 31 . If the results of the Phase 1 archaeological survey identify the potential existence of archaeological and/or paleonlological resources , prior to the commencement of grading, the appH:~~t shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough operations . Qualifications of the archaeologist and pa leontologist shal l be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures . All "finds " shall be reported immediately to the Community Development Director. All archaeological and paleontological finds shall be first offered to the City for preservation . 32 . The applicant shall not use any portion of the proposed residence as a second dwelling unit without obtaining the appropriate Planning and Building Permits. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the construction of the new residence, a covenant shall be recorded with the country recorder as a covenant running w ith the land prohibiting the use of a second dwelling unit without further planning review and approval. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation, and shall prohibit the use of more than one cooking facility on the property unless approval of a Second Dwelling Unit is approved by the Community Development Department. A cooking facility includes a stove, oven, range, or any other built-i n appliance related to food preparation . P .C. Resolution No . 20 12 -16 Page 10 of 10 Attachments 3-324 C ITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES October 16 , 2012 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission has approved a Site Plan Review , Grading Permit and Coastaf Permit to allow the construction of a new home a vacant downsloping lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. ZON2012-00141 ). AppllcantJLandowner: Mr. and Mrs. Khosla Location : 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Said approval allows th~ construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage , which lies within the City's Coastal Specific Plan district. In addition , this approval allows 2,988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) associated retaining walls on the project, as depicted on the Planning Commission approved plans . This approval is subject to the conditions of approval set forth in P .C . Resolution No. 201 2-16. In granting the Coastal Permit, the following findings were made . 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the coastal specific plan ; and 2. That the proposed development, although it is located between the sea and the first public road is consistent with applicable public access and recreat ion policies of the Coastal Act Since the project is located in a Non·Appealable Area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District, this decision may not be appealed to the California Coastal Commission and the decision is final. If you have any questions regarding this pennit. please contact Associate Planner. Leza Mikhail at {310) 544-5228 or via e-mail atlezam@rpv.com. cc: Appl t and Landowner Interested Parties List (self-addressed/stamped envelopes) California Coastal Commission Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association I 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes . CA 90275 Stiassni Family I 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 Marcos Ehab / 7416 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Jason Sikola I 7369 Berry Hill Drive I Rancho Palos Verdes . CA 90275 ·.,1 1'· )(: 1 -,'..\,/, Il l! ·I·'('' h l'.f ·. 1·.•\i' 11· : \j .)' \I '1 ll '. 1 \ 11) '/'1 r \··)'I J .·.··i't.!"11"' .. ,, .~· 1r.1 11 !"-ll •'iJ l 1!\·.1i irt: 1ll ·-l 1.'\ 1~1 1 11 1 11~-.·~·.\I! .1 11'.'J1ih 1•.11·!:1 '1 '...J1 h •1 11 1 •1 ,·.11\/!'1 1 1 '·'1 •1 I !'>.I '•I 1 11 \(f'-1-..i, ···it•', .• .'-l ''~''.\'1 \lt ... , I l j ... I ·r-.\,l !1 \ Attachments 3-325 1 1 I ' ~ 1 I j l STATE OF CALIFDRNIA--t.JATURAL RESOURCES .-.GENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST DISTRICT JO OceQl\gat.e, 1oth Floor LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 (5621 690-60 71 FAX (5621 590-5084 www.coastal.oa.gov EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Gavt1rnor COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL DATE : December 27, 2012 T O : Leza Mikhail, Associated Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd : Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5 391 FROM ; John Del Arrez, Coastal Progra m Analyst RE: Commission Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Please be advised that the coastal development perm it decision descri bed below has been appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30603 and 30625. Therefo re , the decisi on has been stayed pending Com mission action on the appeal pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30623. Local Perm it#: Applicant(s): Description: Location : Local Decision: Appe ll ant(s): 2012-00141 Mr. And Mrs. Khosia Construction of a new, 10,382 square foot two story residence w ith a 1,027 square foot garage, 2988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of flll and four retaining walls 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County) . Approved Commissioner Brian Brennan; Comm issioner Mary Shallenberger, Chair Date Appeal Filed: 12126/2012 The Commission appea l number assigned to this appeal is A-5-RPV-12-350. The Commission hearing date has not yet been establ ished for this appeal. Within 5 working days of receipt of th is Commission Notification of Appeal, copiE.s of alf relevant documents and materials used in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes's consideration of this coastal development permit must be delivered to the South Coast District office of the Coastal Commission (California Administrative Code Section 13112}. Please include copies of plans , relevant photographs, staff reports and related documents, findings (if not already forwarded), all correspondence , and a list, with addresses , of all who provided verbal testimony. A Comm ission staff report and n otice .of the hearing will be forwarded to you prior to the hearing. If you have any questions, please contaci ,John Del Arroz at the South Coast District office. c c: Mr. And Mrs. Khosia Cl: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Attachments 3-326 ·------· -----------· STATE OF CALIFORN IA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G . BROWN , J R ., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIO N RECEIVE ~ Soulh Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate. Sulle 1000 Long Beac h, CA 90802-4302 (562) 59(}..5071 South Coast Region D~C 2 6 2012 SECTION I. Appellant{s) Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s): Coastal Commissioners: Brian Brennan & Marv Shallenberger, Chair 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed NOTE : 1. .Name of local/port government City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 . Brief description of development being appealed : Construction of a new. 10,382 square foot. two-story residence with a 1.027 square foot garage, which lies in the City's Coastal Specific Plan district. In addition, this approval allows 2,988 cubic yards of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) associated retaining walls . 3 . Development's location (street address , assessor's parcel no ., cross street, etc.): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County 4. Description of decision being appealed : a . Approval ; no special conditions : _________ _ b . Approval with special conditions :_X;....;.X;...;__ _______ _ c . Denial: _________________ _ For jurisdictions with a tot3l LCP , denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denia l decisions by port governments are not appea!able . TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION: APPEAL NO: A-5-R PY -12 -350 DATE FILED: December 26, 2012 DISTRICT : South Coast Attachments 3-327 l 1 -, ' 1 I ----·----------------- 5 . Decision being appealed was made by (check one). a. Planning Director/Zoning Administrator: ____ _ b. City Council/Board of Supervisors : ______ _ c. Planning Commission:_X _________ _ 6. Date of local government's decision:--"-"9/=2-""5/'""""1"""2 _____ _ 7 . Local government's file number: ZON2012-00141 SECTION ill. Identification of Other Interested Persons Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper as necessary.) 1. Name and mailing address of permit applicant: Mr. & Mrs . Khosla 2. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing{s). Include other parties which you know to be interested and should receive notice of this appeal. a . Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association 60 Laurel Drive Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 b . Stiassni Family 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 c. Marcel and Irmgard Bond 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 d . Marcos Eh ab 7416 Via Lorado Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page: 2 Attachments 3-328 I ~ I -1 I I i . ------- e . Jason Sikola 7369 Berry Hill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 f. Lenee Bilski 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page: 3 Attachments 3-329 1 , 1 I I I J a. SE C TION IV.Reaso n s S u ppor t ing This Appeal Not e : Appeals of lo ca l g ove rnment Coastal Permit decisions are limited by a vari ety of factors and req u ire ments of the Coa sta l Act. P lease review the appeal i nformation sheet for assi stance in completi ng th is section , wh ich continues on t he next page. Please slate brief ly your reasons for this a p peal. Include a summary desc r iption of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan , or Po rt Mast er P lan policies and requirements in w h ich you believe the p ro ject is incons istent and the reasons th e decisio n warrants a new hearing . (Use add itional paper as necessary.) The proposed project raises an issue as to consistency with the visua l resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified LCP . Although the LCP req u ires the protection of ocean views from Palos Ve rdes Drive ; the p roposed project h as a sig nificant adverse impact on exi sting protected ocean v iews available across the vacant 1-acre project sit e. The project site, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, is located in Subregion 1 as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan . Policy No. 8 of Subreg ion 1 states , "Require proposed developments on land s affected by v iew c o rridors to maintain the resource s". A c cord ing to the City, th e project sit e is n ot identified as bein g w ithin a s pecific visual corri dor. Nevertheless, the City acknowledges that the Coastal Specific Plan also protects views of the ocean across sites that are not with in a designated visual corridor. Specifically, the Plan states : A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West/South/251h Street Corridor has vis u al aspects which qualify as views . Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qualify here ... T o protect th is visual relati onship between the Drive and ocean in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, no buildings should proj ect into a zone measured 2 ' down-arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastli ne. (Page C-11-C-12 , Corridors Element, Coastal Specific Plan) According to the City's analysis , this poli cy would requi re that the ridge line of the p roposed residence be limited to an e l evation of 268.0 as measured from Palos Verdes D rive West, the viewing station,. However, the City approved the proposed sing le family r esidence with a h eight exce eding this height limit (by 8 .73 ') thereby allowing the structure lo project into the ex isting oc ean view. The find i ngs state that the project as approved is however consistent with the visua l resou rces protection provisions of the LUP and that the project as sited and designed is the best alternative for the constru ctio n of a new hom e on the downslope lot . The ratio n ale for exceeding the height limit included : (a) the Development Code allows a house with a maximum height of 16' (279' elevation); (b) the applicant has proposed a residence w ith a heig h t that is less than the maximum height (276.73 ' el e vation); (c) the applic an t is proposing a large P age : 4 Attachments 3-330 I I l l 1 front yard setback; and (d) the applicant has proposed to grade the site to provide a single story fa9ade from Palos Verdes Drive. However, a review of the City's conditions of approval indicates that the City did not require the increased front yard setback. While the local approval requires a maximum build ing height and a maximum square footage of the home and garage and requires certification by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer (Conditions 20 and 21), Condition 13 requ ires the standard 20' setback . Additionally , Condition 14 references the 20-foot front-yard setback . The findings state that additional grading to further lower the height of the structure is infeasible, requiring over 3,000 cubic yards of additional grading . However, the findings do not explain why t his amount of additional grading would be necessary to remove the projection of the structure into in the ocean views especially given th at the project site is a large lot (1 acre) and is described as "gently sloping". The approved project includes 3 ,206 cubic yards of grad ing (2,988 cy cut and 218 cy fill) which includes 1,044 cy of grading for a swimming pool, spa , and landscaped yard area in the rear yard and a level courtyard in the front yard . Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading, only 1,281 cy is for the home and an additional 633cy is for a circu la r driveway in the front yard area . Although the local approval included a brief discussion of additional grading to further lower the height of the structure, this alternative was dismissed as being infeasible. The local approval did not consider other feasible alternatives that could result in a project that is consistent with the visua l resources protection policies of the certified Plan. The project site is a large vacant lot that slopes away from the frontage road . The proposed 10,382 sq. ft . home with a 1,027 sq . ft . garage (total size 11,409 sq . ft.) is larger than the average of the 20 closet homes in the area. Only 1 other home in the area is larger. Perhaps a smaller home would have less visual impact. The proposed home could also be sited further downslope or located elsewhere on the 1-acre site , thereby reducing the visual impact. These a lternatives were not explored. As approved, the proposed project projects into the view corridor and is therefore inconsistent with the visual protection policies of the certified LCP . The project also has a significant adverse impact on existing public views to the ocean available from Palos Verdes Drive West and sets precedence for future development on the adjacent and nearby lots . Page: 5 Attachments 3-331 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 4) SECTION V. Certification The information and fac~ sl8led above a>< con~ Si~t(s) r Authorized Agent Date' ¥ j "J------- Note: lf signed by agent, appellant(s) must also sign below. Section VI. f/We hereby authorize Agent Authorlzntion to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal . Signature of Appellant(s) Date: Attachments 3-332 I 1 I APPEAL FROM COAS T AL PERJv.HT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Page 3 State briefly your reasons for this appeal . 1nclude a summary des cription of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies an.d requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing . (Use additional paper as necessary .) Note : The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal; however·, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit additional infomu!1ion to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request. SECTION V . Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge. Si~cd ~&t~~ Appe1Ja£t or A · Date: I e/c.~ f e... r1 Agent Authorization: I designate the above identifi ed person(s) to act as my agent in all matten; pertaining to this appeal . Signed :------------ Date : (Doomcnl2) Attachments 3-333 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-P,TURAL RESOUkCES AG!:NCY EOMUNO G . BROWN, JR .. G OVERNO R CALIFORNIA COAST AL COMMISSION South Coast Area OHice 200 Oceangalc. Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 908 02-4302 :562: 590 -5071 4 • October 29, 2012 Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No ZON2012-00141 Dear Leza . After a rev iew of th e available evidence , Commiss ion staff has determined tha t the pro1ect at 3344 Palos Ver':ic <; Drive West is loc;ateJ will1111 an appealable area . Coastal Act Section 30603 states that. after certification of a local coasta l program , o nly certain developments approved by the local government can be appealed to the Commission . Part (a) (1) specifies t hat development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of the beach or the mean high ti deline, whi chever is the greater distance , is appealable. Section 13011 of the Commission's administrat ive regulations define t he phrase "first public road paralleling the sea as· "that road nearest to the sea, as defined in Section 301 15 of the Publ ic Resources Code , which· (a) Is lawfully open to uninterrupted public use and is suitable for such use: (b) Is publ icly maintained; (c) Is an improved, all -weather road open lo motor vehicl e traffic in at least one direction; (d) Is not subject to any restrict ions on use b y t he public except when closed due to an emergency or when closed temporarily for m ilitary pu rposes ; and (e) Does in fact connect w ith other public roads providing a continuous access system, and generally parallels and follows the shoreline of the sea .. " The City 's determination that the project is not appealable is based on the project's location landward of Marguerite Drive , which is taken to be the first publi c road paralleling the sea. Although Marguerite Drive appears lo meet c nteria a) through d) of Section 13011. it does not appear to meet crite n a e). Ma;gueri!e Cri-.1e tEmni :iates at a cul-de-sa c an d does not conn ect witil other roads 10 provide a continuous access system . Therefore. the first public road paralleling the sea in this area appears to be Palos Verdes Drive West and the subject site is located withi n the appealable area . Furthermore . this determination matches the Post Certification Appeals Map on file in the Commission 's San Francisco office, which also depicts t he subject location as being within the appeals area. Thank you for your consideration . Are any project plans available to as sist in th e Commission staff's review of the project? Please contact me at the num ber located above if you wish to d iscuss this matter further Si:;,serely, (ld{1~i,)i/ John Del Arrez Coastal Program Analyst Attachments 3-334 STATE OF CALIFO!iNIA · NATURAL RESO URCES AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN . JR .. G o v ERNO '< CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISS'~N Soulh Coast Area O Hice 200 Oceangat~ Suite 1000 Long l:leac>-. CA 90801-4302 (562) 590-5071 Octobe r 29, 2012 DATE: TO : ~~,~ NOTIFICATION OF DEF ICIENT NOT~ENoJI 0 'D llf "~ I <oil October 29 , 2012 D~ "1y o~ FROM· RE : Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner )04~~ (~ John Del Arroz, Coastal Program Analyst '1-f't' ~ Notice of Final Decision for CDP ZON2012-00141 Please be advised of the foll owing deficiency(ies) in the notice of local action we have received for Local Perm it No ZON2012-00141 pursuant to 14 Cal Admin . Code Section 13571 or 13332 . APPLICP..NT(S): DESCRIPTION: LOCATION : Mr. and Mrs. Khosla Construction of a new, 10 .3 82 square foot. two story res idence with a 1,027 square fool garage , 2988 cubic ya rds of cut, 218 cubic yards of fill and four retaining walls . 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Deficiency noted by check mark 1 _ Project description not included or not clear 2 _Conditions for approval and written findings not included . 3. _X_ Procedures for appeal of the decision to the Coastal Commission not {' vr-rli.f. f},,(,-t ~I 4 . _Notice not given to those who requested it. IS ~t/'4/pf 4 5. _Applicant name is missing , location and date of Final Action . Fh ti.-J.i S:U. ,\ f fk /J/ As a result of the deficiency(ies) noted PosH;ertiticatlon LCP _X_ The effective date of the local government action has been suspended, and the 10 working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of action is rece ived in this office (14 Cal. Adm in. Code Sections 13570, 13572.) Post-Certification L_ljf!. _The effective date of the local government action has been suspended , and the 20 working day Comm ission appea l per iod will not commence until a sufficient notice of actio n is received 1n this office . ( 14 Ca l. Admin . Code Sections 13570, 13572 ) II you have any questions . please contact John Del Arroz at the South Coast Area office . Attachments 3-335 CITVOF RAN CHO PALOS VERDES December 10, 2012 REISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION On Octobe r 16, 2012 , a Notice of Final Decision on the project descnbed below was issued to the Californ ia Coastal Commission and all interested parties . The California Coastal Commission has requested that lhe Notice of Final DeC1sion be re issued noling t hat the property located at 3344 Pa los Verdes Dr ive Wes t i s in the Appealable Area of the City's Coastal Specific Plan District This noti ce constit utes t he reissued Not ice of Fina l Decision NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 25 , 2012 . the Planning Commission has approved a Site P lan Review . Grading Permit and Coastal Permit to allow the construction of a n ew home a vacan ! downslopi ng lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No ZON2012-00141 ) The City's 15-day appea l period expired on Octobe r 10, 2012. No tim ely appea l was hied and the City's decision 1s now fina l Appllcant/La ndowner: Mr and Mrs Khosla Location: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Said approval allows the construction of a new 10 .382 square foot , two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage. which lies within the City's Coastal Specific P lan district. In addition . this approval allows 2 .988 cubic yards of cut . 218 cubic yards of fill, and four (4) associated retain ing walls on the project. as depicted on the Planning Commission approved plans . This approval 1s subject to th e con di tions of appro va l set fort h 1n P .C . Resolution No 2012-16 In granting ti"le Coas tal Permit, the following findings were made That the proposed development 1s in conformance with th e coastal specific plan. and 2 . That th e proposed development. although 11 1s located between the sea and the first pubh c road , 1s consistent with applicable public access and recrea ti on policies of the Coastal Act Since the project 1s located in an Appealable Area of the Ci t y 's Coastal Distncl, this dec1s1on may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission within 1 0 working days of the receipt of th is notice in the Coastal Commissio n's Long Beach Office The Coastal Commission ·s office 1s located at 200 Ocean , Su ite 1000 . Long Beach. CA 90802 If you have any questions regard ing th is permit please contact Associate P lanner, Leza Mikhail at 1310) 544 - 5228 or via e-ma il at lezam@rpv com . cc Ap nt and Landowner Interested Parties List (self-addressed/stamped envelopes) Ca lifornia Coastal Commission Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association/ 60 Laurel Dnve I Rancho P alos Ve rdes , CA 90275 Stiassni Family I 3400 Pa los Verdes Dnve West I Ranch o Palos Verdes. CA 902 7 5 Marcel and Irmgard Bond I 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West I Ranc ho P alos Verdes . C A 902 75 Marcos Ehab / 74 16 Via Lorado I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Jason Sikola / 7369 Berry Hill Drive I Ra ncho Pa los Verdes. CA 902 75 Lenee B ilsk i / 4255 Palos Verdes Drive South I Rancho Palos Ve r des . CA 9027 5 t 1' I I 1 I l ,, \ I . •: • .1 11 I ·I ~ I I ~. . • . ' '. I ~I 'I " ' ' ' I, I • ' ' + \ • I I I " •t1'·1, .~ ' I j1 i ,•'I . •1·1 II! .t I', 1-tt ·I!· .. '. ,! I 11, 'I I• '•1 •1 1 '• 1·1 I )I • 1, 11, 1 •I I 1• •I "''."·I ·•I · \ • • I 1 •+ '• •• I I \ Attachments 3-336 Attachments 3-337 ( CORRIDORS ELEMENT THE CONTENT AND FORMAT OF THE COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO THIS POINT HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN A REFLECTION OF THE ·GeNERAL PLAN. THE INCLUSION OF A CORRIDORS ELEMENT. HOWEVE~. INTRODUCES A NEW ANO VERY NECESSARY ELEMENT INTO THE CITY'S PLANNING PROCESS. THE CORRIDORS ELEMENT REPRESENTS A LOGICAL EXTENSION IN THAT, LIKE THE LANO use ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAM, 1 T Jo'I NS TOGETHER COMPONENTS OF THE VARIOUS PHYSICAL ELEMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PLAN THROUGH THE use. PRESERVATION , ANO ENHANCEMENT OF ACCESS, EDGES, AND VISUAL AND NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS. THE CORRIDORS ELEMENT IS MADE UP OF SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS, WHICH WHEN COMBINED, FORM A WEB-LIKE NETWORK OVER THE ENTIRE COASTAL REGION. CORRIDORS ARE GENERALLY OF A LINEAR · NATURE ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUAL CORRIDOR COMPONENTS ·MAV NOT BEf THEY CAN BE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE1 THEY MAY BE OF A REGION1'L OR NEIGHBORHOOD lMPORTANCE1 AND THEY HAY BE MAN-MADE OR NATURAL. THE TERM ''CORRIDOR'' AS UTILIZED IN THE GENERAL PLAN PRIMARILY REFERS TD THE VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CERTAIN LINEAR ELEMENTS, SUCH AS STREET NET~ORKS, PATH ANO TRAIL NETWORKS, ANO ADJACENT AREAS WHICH PROVIDE A DIRECT OR INDIRECT VISUAL RELATIONSHIP (GENERAL PLAN 191-192). As UTILIZED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS, THE COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN ''CORRIDORS'' REFERS TO A BROADER RANGE OF THE COMMUNITY AND REGION. THIS EXPANO~O CONCEPT INCLUDES A FULL RANG~ OF INTER- RELATED LINEAR ANO NON-LINEAR ELEMENTS WHICH PROVIDE FUNCTIONAL, PROTECTION/ PRESERVATION, DEFINITION, AND LINKING CAPABILITIES. C-1 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 3 8 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAN, THE VARIOUS CORRIOOR ELE~ENTS HAVE BEEN GROUPED INTO FIVE BASIC CATEGORIES. THE FOLLOWING LIST IDENTIFIES AND DEFINES EACH CATEGORY• 0 C-2 ACCESS CORRIDORS -PROVIDE ACCESS TO AND FROH ACTIVITY AREAS BY VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS, ANO BICYCLISTS (GENERAL PLAN 117-137), VERY OFTEN AN ACCESS CORRIDOR WILL ACT AS A MULTIFUNCTIOttAL CORRIDOR (MORE THAN ONE HOOE)1 HOWEVER. SINGLE FUNCTION ACCESS CORRIDORS CAN 8E FOUND JN T HE COASTAL REGION. Access CORRIDORS MAY ALSO PERFORM RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE FUNCTIONS, I NFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS -THESE CORRIDORS FACILITATE UTILITIES, MAN- AADE DRAINAGE ANO WASTE COLLECTION NET~ORKS, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS , AND THEIR RELATED SERVICE/ACCESS ROUTES. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN MAN-MAOE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, Tt~ MAJORITY OF THESE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS ARE PARALLEL TO, OR WITHIN, EXISTING ACCESS CORRIDORS. IN THE CASE OF POTENTIAL (FUTURE) INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS, TYPICAL PLANNING AND DESIGN PRACTICE WILL VERY OFTEN INTEGRATE BOTH ACCESS ANO INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS WlTHIN THE SAME PHYSICAL CORRIDOR. INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS CAN PROVIDE RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE FUt-,.:TJONS , AND EFFORTS A~E BEING MADE TO COORDINATE CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE ANO NATURAL SYS TEMS IN A MORE HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP (E.G . DRAINAGE). a • VISUAL CORBJQOBS -THIS CATEGORY IS NOT AFFIXED TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRON- MENT {MAN-HADE OR NATURAL) BUT RATHER, DIRECTED BY OR ORIENTED TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. A VISUAL CORRIDOR MAY BE OF A 11 LINEAR 11 TYPE WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO A FOCAL POINT OR IT CAN BE A BROADER. LESS SPECIFIC VIEW WHICH 15 REFERRED TO AS AN ARC. VISUAL CORRIDORS MAY BE TAKEN FROM ANY NUMBER OF LOCA- TIONS OR ORIENTATIONS, BUT THE EMPHASIS OF THIS PLAN IS FROM TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE ACCESS CORRIDORS. NATURAL CORRIDORS -THIS ELEMENT CON- SJ STS OF NATURAL WATER COURSES, SIGNIFI- CANT NATURAL VEGETATION, AND TOPOGRAPltY OR OTHER NATURAL FEATURES. A NATURAL CORRIDOR CAN ACT AS A MULTIFUNCTIONAL CORRIOOR1 HOWEVER VERY OFTEN ITS SENSITIVITY ANO/OR ACCESSIBILITY MAY LIMIT THE TYPE OR EXTENT OF FUNCTIONS IT CAN PROVIDE (SEE PROTECTION/PRESER- VATION CORRIDORS). PROTECTION/PBESfBVATION CORRIDORS - THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THIS CORRIDOR ELEMENT IS FOR THE PROTECTION/ PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES WHICH REQUIRE PROTECTIOH FR OM PEOPLE AS WELL AS PROTECTION OF PEOPLE FROM UNSAFE AREAS OR _ FEATURES. MANY OF THESE PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDORS HAVE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO VISUAL AND NATURAL CORRIDORS AND MAY BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO ACCES S CO RRIDORS . UNLIKE OTHER CORRIDORS, THE PROTECTION CORRIDORS REQUIRE A SPECIF IC CITY DETERMINATION. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 3 9 THESE CORRIDORS (EXCEPT FOR THE PROTECTION/ PRESERVATION CORRIDORS) ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A WIDE VARIETY OF USERS (RESIDENTS, NON-RESIDENTS, SERVICE PERSONNEL, PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL,· ETC.) WITH A CLEARLY DEFINED. RELATIVELY CONTINUOUS, SET OF ''LINKAGES'', OR UNIFYING ELEMENTS, THROUGH- OUT THE COASTAL REGION. THUS, USE OF ONE PART O~ THIS SYSTEM SHOULD, THROUGH CONSISTENT DESIGN PRINCIPLES, PROPER SIGNING/MAP INFORMATION, AND OTHER FACTORS, ENABLE EASE OF PERCEPTION -AND USE OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF THc SYSTEM. THEIR FUNCTIONS OF LINKING AND DEFINING OTHER ACTIVJTY AREAS ARE SIGNIFI- CANT , IN THAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH A LAHGE NUMBER OF THE STATED POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN THROUGH RELATIVELY SIMPLE, BUT . HIGHLY ''VISIBLE'' MEANS, SUCH AS A NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA BEING ENHANCED TO DEFINE AN ''EDGE'' BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS THROUGH LANDSCAPE. WHILE ALSO PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS FROM AN OPEN SPACE AREA OR ANOTHER CORRIDOR TO A PARK, THE SEA BLUFF EDGE, ETC. ADDITIONALLY, ALL OF THE CORRIDORS MAY PROVIDE OPEN SPACE ANO RECREATION FUNCTIONS WITHIN THEIR LIMITS. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITION AT THE PRESENT TIME, MANY OF THE COMPONENTS WHICH MAKE UP THE FIVE CORRIDOR ELEMENTS EXIST WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION. JN FACT, SOME HAVE ESTABLISHED DEFINITE CHARACTER ANO RATHER PRECISE BOUNDARJESt SOME POSSESS MULTIFUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIESl AND SOME CURRENTLY PROVIDE LINKS TO OTHER CORRIDOR ELEMENTS. HOWEVER, FEW POSSESS A COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TRAITS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A NEEDED COHESIVENEiS AND CHARACTER TO THE COASTAL REGION. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS DISCUSS THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF EACH ELEMENT AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST, AS WELL AS LIKELY POTENTIALS THAT WERE OBSERVED DURING THE RECONNAISSANCE AND RESEARCH PHASES OF THIS PLAN. 0 • THE PRIMARY ACCESS CORRIDOR WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION IS PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST/SOUTH/25TH STREET, WHICH AT PRESENT OPERATES (ALTHOUGH IS NOT DESIGNED) AS A MULTJFUNCTION ACCESS CORRIDOR. PROVIDING AUTOMOBILE, BICYCLE. AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. CURRENT ENGINEERIN< AND DESIGN STUDIES, AS WELL AS APPROVED PROJECTS, CAN PROVIDE A ''DESIGNED'' MULTIFUNCTION ACCESS CORRIDOR CONFIGURATJOt FOR PORTIONS OF P.V. DRIVE (BETWEEN HAWTHORNE AND PALOS VERDES ESTATES), BY SEPARATING VEHICULAR, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRAIN TRAFFIC INTO INDIVIDUAL ''SUB-CORRIDORS'' DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO THEIR NEEDS • GENERALLY. INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORKS, SUCH AS UTILITY, SEWERAGE. AND WATER, ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING ACCESS CORRIDOR. THEREFORE. NO SEPARATE PATTERN HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE COASTAL C-3 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 0 C-4 REGION. WHERE A CONSISTENT OEVELOPMENT PATTERN ·HAS NOT EMERGED. ~HILE NO OVERALL PATTERN FOR CONTINUITY OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR 6ASEO SYSTEM 15 PRESENT. PARTIAL CONTlNUlTY IS ACfilEVABLE IN SOME AREAS WHICH CAN YIELD AN IMPORTANT LINKING CAPABILITY . 0 THE _GENERAL PLAN IDENTIFIES SEVERAL VISTAS AND VIEWS <GENERAL PLAN. 189) WHICH ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM. OR IHHEOIATELY AOjACENT TO, THE PRIMARY ACCESS CORRIDOR <PALOS VERDES DRIVE). ALTHOUGH THE RESULTS OF THESE VISUAL RESOURCES ARE CURRENTLY EXCELLENT, THE ANTJC(PATEO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISRUPT OR DESTROY THIS VALUABLE RESOURCE UNLESS THEY ARE DEFINEO, PRESERVED, ANO ENHANCED . ALSO IN- CLU6ED IN THIS INVENTORY ARE THOSE MARINE ORIENTED VIEW CORRIDORS WHICH AHE ESSENTIAL TO MARINE NAVIGATION. THERE ARE SEVERAL NAVIGATIONAL AID MARKERS LOCATED WITHIN OR CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE COASTAL REGION TO BE I MPAC TED BY FUTURE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. GENERALLY. THESE AIDS ARE 11 RANGE MARKERS'• OR LANDMARKS PLACED IN A SEQUENTIAL ORDER ON THE LAND CANO IOENTJFIEO ON NAUTICAL CHARTS) WHICH, WllEN VIEWED FROM THE OCEAN, WILL ASSIST MARINERS IN NAVIGATING THE SOMETIMES ''TRICKY'' PALOS VERDES COASTLINE:. LIKE VISUAL CORRIDORS, MOST NATURAL CORRIDORS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS PLAN ALREADY EXIST AND FUNCTION AS 4 CORRIDORS. CURRENTLY, SEVERAL ORAl~AGE COURSES, MOST LINED WITH VEGETATION~ DIVIDE THE COASTAL REGION INTO SEVERAL SEGMENTS. THE BLUFF AND ASSOCIATED SHORELINE IS THE MOST EVIDENT NATURAL CORRIDOR WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION. WHILE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND NATURAL CONSTRAINTS HAVE. ANO WILL PROTECT HOST NATURAL CORRIDORS, MANY PROVIDE MULTI- FUNCTIONAL PURPOSES (VIEW AND ACCESS) AND SOME ACT AS NATURAL BOUNDARIES AND ENHANCEMENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THE GENERAL PLAN IDENTIFIES AREAS WH~CH COULD BE CONSIDERED THE EQUIVALENT OF PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDORS (GENERAL PLAN 31-33 AND 35-37). W~ILE THE AREA$ WHICH REQUIRE PROTECTION FROM HAN ARE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSIOH OF AREAS FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, NONE ARE CURRENTLY TOTALLY PROTECTED, NOR ARE THEY FUNC- TION AL IN AN 11 AVOIOANCE 11 ROLE. SOME POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ANO FEATURES WHICH NECESSITATE PROTECTION FOR MAN ARE MORE OBVIOUS, SUCH AS BLUFF EDGE. . AND THUS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS PROTECTION/ PRESE RVATION CORRIOORS1 HOWEVER. OTHER AREAS ARE LESS OBVIOUS ANO REQUIRE JN-DEPTH STUDY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CLASSIFI ED. CURRENTLY, THeRE ARE NO PRACTICAL METHODS 8Y W~ICH THESE CO RRIDORS CAN BE ''AVOIDED'~ BY MAN. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 1 CORRIDORS CONCEPT ACCESS CORRIDORS PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST/SOUTH/25TH STREET IS THE PRIMARY CORRIDOR WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION. IT FORMS THE SPINE OF AN ACCESS CORRIDORS CONCEPT WHICH INVOLVES A SERIES OF LATERALS AND LOOPS WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION WHICH WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO, FROM, AND THROUGH DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED AREAS. SUGGESTING A MORE DEFINITIVE LOCATION FOR PROPOSED ACCESS CORRIDORS WITHIN UNDEVELOPED OR UNCOMMITTED PORTIONS (SUBREGIONS) OF THE COASTAL REGION JS A FUNCTION OF SEVERAL FACTORSl .. • • LOCATION OF EXISTING OR ''APPROVED'' ACCESS ROUTES (STREETS) WJTHIN UN- DEVELOPED AREAS WHICH COULD CONCEIVABLY FORM A PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. THE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN LOCATIONS OF POSSIBLE STREETS ANO OTHER ACCESS LJNKAGES WHICH MAY BE PROPOSED BY FUTURE DEVELOPERS/DE~-I GNERS p BUT WHICH CAN BE SHAPED CONCEPTUALLY BY THIS CORRIDORS STUDY. AND PHYSICALL¥ CtN TERMS OF DESIGN STANDARDS) BY THE CITY'S FUTURE STREET STANDARDS STUDY. THE EXISTING OR POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF OTHER TYPES OF CORRIDORS WHICH MAY COMBINE WITH ACCESS. CORRIDORS INTO MULTIFUNCTION CORRIDORS (INFRASTRUCTURE , NATURAL CORRIDORS, tTC.). THE PHYSICAL REOUI~E~E~~~ FOR THE VARIOUS ACCESS CORRIDOR ELE~ENTS, & • INCLUDING MINIMUM WIDTHS, GRADIENTS, SEPARATION/ DEFINITION CONS I DERATIONS, ETC. THE LOCATION OF PROTECTION CORRIDOR S WHICH MAY PRECLUDE THE PRESENCE OF ACCESS CORRIDORS . THE WILLINGNESS OF MAJOR EXISTING USE AREAS ANO OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO PERMIT PASSAGE OF NON-STREET ACCES S CORRIDORS (OR LINKAGE TO THEM AT CIT Y BOUNDARIES) SUCH AS PEDEST R IAN AND BICYCLE CORRIDORS . THE ACCOMPANYING ACCESS CDR~IOORS DRA WING {FIGURE 24) ILLUSTRATES THE TYPES OF ACCESS CORRIDORS WHICH MIGHT BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION. BASED UPON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS . THIS DRAWING ANO THE ELEMENTS OF THIS ACCESS CORRIDOR DISCUSSI ON SHOULD BE REVIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE PATHS ANO TRAILS NETWORK CONTAINED WITHIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE PORTION OF THIS PLAN, AND THE IL LUSTRATIONS ACCOMPANYING THAT DISCUSSION. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING AND OESIGN CONSIDEqA- TIONS ARE STATED IN THE FORM OF GENERAL GUIDELINES RATHER THAN SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS , SINCE THE ''RPV STREET STANDARDS'' AS WELL AS SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ELSEWHERE IN THIS DOCUMENT PROVIDE MORE DETAILED STANDARDS AND CRITERIA . THE PRIMARY VALUE OF THESE AC CESS CORRIDOR GUIDELINES IS THUS THEIR INTENDED ROLE I N SHAPING THE PLANNING AND DESIGN PROCESS FOR BOTH PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS ANO PRIVA TE C-s A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 2 C-6 P•••*, 1>rlmo1., l'•ll• •nd llail ( .. •• •• ,•J 5Dcondary path and l,.il B propood blull road 6 exl1lin9 road rn propoud parking/turnout ina)or ~ult accon m other bluO acceii5 -public recreation BJ commercial racroation THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ lo laoolu•oo j:noo DEV ELO PME NT PROJcCTS1 .. CONTINUITY OF PATHWAYS BETWEEN MAJOR ACCESS CORRIDOR~, OPEN SPACES , ETC., SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITHIN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS,· BUT DESIGNED SO AS TO RETAIN PRIVACY FOR ADJACENT RESIDENCES WITHIN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. 0 WHERE VER POSSIBLE, PROPOSED ACCESS CORRIDORS SHOULD BE LOCATED SO AS TO MAXIMIZE COMPATIBLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MULTI-USE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER CORRIDOR TYPES (OVERLAID OR PARALLEL). PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF PEDESTRIANS, BlCYCLISTS, AND AUTOMOBILES WITHIN MULTI-USE ACCESS CORR I DORS SHOULD BE ACCOM~_JSHED THROUGH PHYSICAL BARRIERS (FENCES, CURBS/GRADE DI F FE RENCES] AND LANDSCAPING WHERE POSSIBLE. .. DEFINITION OF CORRIDORS SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF DISTINCTIVE SURFACE MATERIALS. LANDSCAPING, CON- SISTENT SIGNING, AND LIGHTING. WHERE ACCESS CORRIDORS ARE I NTENDED FOR NON-VEHICULAR USE (PEDESTRIANS. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 3 .. " BICYCLISTS) YET PROVIDE THE ONLY ACCESS TO AREAS OF CRITICAL SAFETY/SURVEILLANCE (BLUFF EDGE) THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH DESIGN ELEMENTS WHICH WILL, WHILE PREVENTING PUBLIC VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, SELECTIVELY ADMIT SPECIFIC TYPES OF EMERGENCY/SAFETY VEHICLES. ACCESS CORRIDOR GRADIENTS SHOULD SE DESIGNED SD THAT THEY DO NOT EXCEED ''DESIRABLE•' GRADIENT STANDARDS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE USERS (PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, AUTOS), AND WHERE TOPOGRAPHY OR OTHER FACTORS PROHIBIT THIS APPROACH, THEY SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AS BEING OF GREATER DIFFICULTY, AND REQUIRING MORE CAUTION. figure 25 lnrroslructure corridors .. WHERE DESIRABLE AND POSSIBLE, ACCESS CORRIDORS SHOULD INCLUDE OVERLOOKS, VIEWPOINTS, REST STOPS, AND OTHER OP; l SPACE ELEMENTS WITHIN THEIR DESIGNS TO BOTH PROVIDE A BROADER RANGE OF USE BEYOND THE UTILITARIAN ACCESS FUNCTION OF THE CORRIDOR AS WELL AS TO VARY ITS PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION. PROVIDING VISUAL ANO SPATIAL INTEREST. INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS THE MAJOR POTENTIAL FOR THIS CATEGORY OF CORRIDOR TO SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR OTHER ''OVERLAID'' CORRIDOR FUNCTIONS (IN ACCOMPLISHING THE MULTI-FUNCTION CORRIDOR OBJECTIVE) LIES IN THE APPROACH TAKEN BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT I ·O I mfr119\ructur11 111clll•y ~-t.::!:.:..J 11uem1nt /1ighl·of·w11y E::;;;J public road right-or-w11y THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ Io I eoof 1&00 J 3200 C-1 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 4 C-a PLANNING/PATTERNS IN UNCOMMITTED OR PARTIALLY COMMITTED SUBREGIONS OF THE COASTAL REGION. lF THE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR UTILITIES ANO OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS, WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SITE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS OF THESE DEVELOP- MENTS, CAN BE STRUCTURED SO AS TO PROVIDE PORTIONS OF, AND LINKAGES TO, OTHER CORRIDOR SYSTEMS (ACCESS, VISUAL, NATURAL, PROTECTIVE) THROUGH THEIR DESIGN• THEN AN INFRASTRUCT~RE BASED CORRIDOR SYSTEM OF SOME CONTINUITY CAN BE CREATED WITHIN THE UNCOMMITTED SUBREGIONS JN THE FUTURE. THE ACCOMPANYING ILLUSTRATION (fJGURE 25) PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF THE MAJOR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ONLY CORRIDORS (NOT INCLUDING OTHER TYPES OF EXISTING CORRIDORS) WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION. THOSE THAT MlGHT BE PROVIDED BY POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION WILL BE DELINEATED IN THE PLANS FOR HIESE DEVELOPMENTS . THE FOLLOWING ARE GUIDELINES ANO SHOULD BE USED TO CREATE OR ENHANCE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS 1 " COORDINATION SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT lN RELATION TO THE POTENTIAL USES Of THEIR CURRENT PROGRAM OF .JOINT USE AND LANOSCAPIN OF DISTRICT RIGHTS-OF-WAY. ~HERE APPROPRt- ATE , FOR PEDESTRIAN AND OTH~t NON- VEHJCULAR IEXCEPT EMERGENCY! ACCESS CORRIDOR USES, AND WHERE HUMAN ACCESS IS TO BE LIMITED. IS NOT DESIRABLE (DUE TO THE EFFECTS OF HUMANS ON HABITATS, OR FOR HAZARD REASONS). THESE RIGHTS- .. • OF-WAY/EASEMENTS/CORRIOORS COULO BE UTILIZ~O AS NATURAL OR PROTECTION CORRIDORS. ALL FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS INVOLVING UTILITIES OR COMMUNICATIONS, AS WELL AS SEWERAGE, SHOULD BE UNOER- uROUNDED WHERE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON COASTAL RESOURCES, INCLUOJNG SCENI~. RESOURCES. Al..L : MAN-MADE DR~t~A4~ ~OURSES S~OULD BE EITHER UNOEflGROUNOEP OR, IF RtiTAJNED ON THE SURFACE,. DEVELOPED WITH A NATURALIZED 1 , • 1i 1: '_• ' TR.J:;ATMENT ANQ LAND.SCAPE .TO CONFORM TO EXISTING NATURA~ DRAINAGE APPEARANCES. WHERE EXISTING AND PROPOSED INFRASTRUC- TURE CORRIDORS MAY BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO EXISTING ANO PROPOSEO . ACCESS CORRI- DORS (OR OTHER TYPES OF CORRIDORS) OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND THE SI2E ANO FUNCTION THROUGH A MULTI-USE CORRIDOR APPROACH SHO~LP BE CONSIDERED IN A COM- PREHENSl VE DESIGN APPROACH STRESSING THE OVERALL CORRIDOR POTENTIALS RATHER THAN •MERELY PROVJDING ENGINEERING AND DESlG~. _SOL.UT.IONS FOR THI; INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ALONE, ACCESS ROUTES NECESSARY FOR SERVICE AND INSPECTION OF IN~RA~TRUCTURE CORRIDOR FACILITIES SHOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO THE DESIGN AND OVERALL CORRIDORS CONCEPT 50 AS TO PROVIDE AT LEAST A PARTIAL ACCESS CORRIDOR FUNCTION (PEDESTRIANS AT LEAST) WHERE DESIRABLE AND POSSIBLE. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 5 0 ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAJN/TERRACES GENERALLY ''SUBDIVtOJNG'• THESE AREAS INTO SMALLER LAND AREAS DEFINED BY THE RAVINES AND VEGETATION CHARACTERISTlC OF THE DRAINAGE FUNCTION. MANY OF THE~E CORRIDORS PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT SMALL ANIMAL HABITAT AS WELL. NATURAL VEGETATION ANO DRASTIC TOPO- GRAPHIC CHANGE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SEA BLUFF EDGE AND FACE. ANO RELATED DRAINAGE COURSE ''MOUTHS'' AT THE BLUFF EDGE CREATING CORRIDORS CONTAINING EXTENSIVE VEGETATION. THIS IS BOTH A HORIZONTAL ANO VERTICAL CORRIDOR, WJTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED ACCESS ROUTES TO ANO DOWN THE BLUFF FACE REPRESENTING THE PRIMARY HUMAN INTRUSIONS WHICH MUST BE CAREFULLY JNTEGRATEO INTO THESE .. CORRIDORS. NATURAL VEGETATION AREAS ON RELATIVELY CONTINUOUS STEEP SLOPES WHICH ARE EITHER IN THE HAZARD, OR DIFFICULT-TO-BUILD CATE GORIES, BUT WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR A PATH OA TRAIL ELEMENT OF A MINOR ACCESS CORRIDOR CONNECTING ADJACENT USE AREAS. THE FOLLOWING ARE GUIDELINES AND SHOULD BE CONS IDERED WHENEVER DEALING WITH AN AREA IDEN - TIFIED AS A NATURAL CORRIDOR1 C -14 NATURAL CORRIDORS SHOULD, WHERE DESIR- ABLE AND FEASIBLE, BE UTILIZED AS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS CORRIDORS PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE COASTAL BLUFF AREA AND PUBLIC USE AREAS, ANO SHOULD HAVE APPRO- PRIATE DESIGN TREATMENT TO INSURE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AS WELL AS RETENTTON • • 0 AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE NATUR~L FEATURES. NATURAL CORRIDORS SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE BUFFERS SEP- ARATJ NG ANO DEFINING DEVELOPED AREAS AND WH~R~ PEOESTRI~N ACCESS IS PRESENT, . } .. . LINKING TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS CORRIDORS WITHIN THESE' o 'i:vELOPMENTS. WHERE NATURAL CORRIDORS CAN BE UTIL I ZED TO EXPAND, OR OTHERWISE ENHANCE, PROTEC- TION CORRIDORS AS OPEN SPACE WITHIN VISUAL CORRIDOR~. THE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING CONTROLLED ACCESS CORRIDORS FOR VIE~lNG SELECTED HABITAT AREAS FOR EDUCATIONAL OR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES. NATURAL CORRIDORS SHOULD BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO RETARD OR INHIBIT THE CHANCE FOR BRUSH FIRES IN GRASSLAND AND BRUSH AREAS. THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF 'FlRE RESISTANT PLANT MATERIALS, CLEANING OF .HIGH FJRE RISK MATERIALS, ETC. NATURAL CORRIDORS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM INCREAS~D EROSION POTENTIAL DUE TO INCREASED IMPERMEABLE SURFACE IN ADJA- CENT DEVELOPED AREAS THROUGH DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE OF SOIL-RETAINING PLAN T MATERIALS, SELECTIVE PLACEMENT OF NATU - RAL ROCK, AND OTHER DRAINAGE CHANN E L L1NERS, ETC. PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDORS THE DESCRIPTION OF PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDORS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS SEC T ION A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 6 0 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL CORRIDOR FUNCTIONS TD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN OVERLAY OR PARALLEL FASHION SUCH AS PEDESTRIAN ACCES~ CORRIOORS, VISUAL CORRIDORS, INFRASTRUCTURE CQRRIOqRs, AND · AS A SUFFER. BETWEEN P~OTECTION COR - RIDORS AND HIGH ACTIVITY CORRIDORS (ACCESS) OR USE AREAS. PROVIDING IMPORTANT UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS SUCH AS DRAINAGE, ere·.' 'WITHIN AN EXISTING ENVl'RQNMENT WHl .CH DO~S NOT HAVE TO BE ALTERED, AT COST OR EFFORT, TO ACCOMMODATE THIS fUNC1ION1 THUS RESULTING IN ECONOMIES FOR BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR AND RETENTION OF CHARACTERISTIC LAND FORMS WHICH HAVE DEVELOPED NATURALLY IN RESPONSE TO THESE NATURAL ACTIONS FORMING AN IMPORTANT PORTION OF THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE COASTAL REGION. THE NATURAL CORRIDORS DEFINED FOR THE COASTAL REGION ARE ILLUSTRATED ON THE ACCOMPANYING FIGURE 29. THREE DISTINCT NATURAL CORRIDOR TYPES ARE EVIOENT1 <> NATURAL DRAINAGE AREAS ANO DRAINAGE COURSES GENERALLY LEADING DOWN TO THE COASTAL BLUFF AREA AND TRAVERSING natur111 drainage courses m•1 n11tur11I wegelatlon r~ •lgnlrk:•nt topographic change -n11tur11I wege\ation conllnuoua steep 1lope/haz1m1oua condition THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ lo leoofi1100 13200 C-l 3 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 4 7 <j r. ".!./ n.. ·~· a. SECTI ON IV.Reasons Supporting This Appeal Note : Appeals of local government Coastal Permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section, which continues on the next page . Please state briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program . Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inco nsistent and the reasons t he decision warrants a new hearing . (Use additional paper as necessary.) The proposed project raises an issue as to consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes certified LCP . Although the LCP requires the protection of ocean views from Palos Verdes Drive ; the proposed project has a significant adverse impact on existing protected ocean views available across the vacant 1-acre project site . The project site, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. is located in Subregion 1 as identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan . Policy No . 8 of Subregion 1 st ates , "Require proposed developments on lands affected by view corridors to maintain the resources". According to the City , the project site is not identified as being within a specific visual corridor . Nevertheless, the City acknowledges that the Coastal Specific Plan also protects views of the ocean across sites that are not within a designated visual corridor . Specifically, the Plan states : A large portion of the Palos Verdes Drive West/South/251 h Street Corridor has visual aspects which qualify as views . Those sections of the Drive which have ocean views qualify here ... To protect this visual relationship between the Drive and ocean in those areas which are not part of an identified vista corridor, no buildings should project into a zone measured 2' down-arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline. (Page C-11-C-12, Corridors Element, Coastal Specific Plan) According to the City's analysis , this policy would require that the ridgeline of the proposed residence be limited to an elevation of 268.0 as measured from Palos Verdes Drive West, the viewi ng station ,. However, the City approved the proposed single family residence with a height exceeding this height li m it (by 8.73') thereby allowing the structure to project in to the existing ocean view . The findings state that the project as approved is however consistent with the visual resources protect ion provisions of the LUP and that the project as sited and designed is the best alternative for the construction of a new home on the downslope lot. The rationale for exceeding the height limit included : (a) the Development Code allows a house with a maximum he ight of 16 ' (279 ' elevation); (b) the applicant has proposed a residence with a height that is less than the maximum height (276 .73' elevation); (c) the appl icant is proposing a large Page : 4 Attachments 3-348 •, front yard setback ; and (d) the applicant has proposed to grade the site to provide a s ingle story fai;;ade from Palos Verdes Drive . However, a review of the City's conditions of approval indicates that the City did not require the increased front yard setback . While the local approval requires a maximum building height and a maximum square footage of the home and garage and requires certification by a licensed land surveyor o r civil engineer (Conditions 20 and 21 ), Condition 13 requires the standard 20' setback . Add itionally, Condition 14 references the 20-foot front-yard setback . The findings state that additional grading to further lower the height of the structure is infeasible, requiring over 3,000 cubic yards of additiona l grad ing . However, the findings do not explain why this amount of additional grading would be necessary to remove the projection of the structure into in the ocean views especially given that the p roj ect site is a large lot (1 acre) and is described as "gently sloping ". The approved project includes 3 ,206 cubic yards of grading (2,988 cy cut and 218 cy fill) which includes 1,044 cy of grading for a swimming pool. spa, and landscaped yard area in the rear yard and a level courtyard in the front yard . Of the 3,206 cy of approved grading , only 1,281 cy is for the home and an additional 633cy is for a circular driveway in the front yard area. Although the local approval included a brief discussion of additional grading to further lower the height of the struct ure, this alternative was dismissed as being infeasible. The local approval did not consider other feasible alternatives that could result in a project that is consistent with the visual resources protection policies of the certified Plan . The project site is a 1arge vacant lot that slopes away from the frontage road. lbtl.~d 10 ,382 .84;·ft.·homewtth&·-t;02f..•4:~(t otal size 11,409 sq . ft .) is,-.i~ the a11etage'Of tfttf1Cf~seNt6m~~rttt ·tf.1e~. Only 1 other home in the area is larger. Perhaps .. .:a· sm~·ftdme'.VJDlljdt>lave -Je":'VHuJat :impact:· Ther.proposed hOme ooukf ·91so be sitea furthe.r<JowM .. or .IO<*tetfeJBeWtWr~oocthe 1-acre site, thereby reducing the visual impacl. . ·· ·· ·· · · .... -: .. · · , ... ( ••• to,.,;.,, .•.• .ft ... ' .• ,; ··" As approved, the proposed project projects into the view corridor and is therefore inconsistent with the v isual protection policies of the certified LCP. The project also has :. ·, a significant adverse impact on existing public views to the ocean available from Palos Verdes Drive West and sets precedence for futur elopment on the adjacent and nearby lots. Page : 5 I { Attachments 3-349 C-10 DEGREES) ANO INDIRECT (32.5-90 DEGREES). A 90-0EGREE ANGLE TO THE SIDE WAS DETERMINED TO BE OUT OF THE NORMAL RANGE OF VJSION OF DRIVER ANO PASSENGER. THE BOUWDARIES OF THE VISTAS IDENTIFIED ALONG PALOS VERDES ORJYE ARE DEFINED BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND SECTIONS OF THE COASTAL AREA (FIGURES 26, 27, AND 2Bl. THESE BOUNDARIES WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD1 0 liORlZONTAL BOUNDARIES RIGHT EDGE FROM THE BEGINNING POINT OF A CONTINUOUS VIEWING ST~TION TO THE RIGHT EDGE OF THE ---- pl. lermln 0 VIEWING Focus. LEFT EDGE -FROM THE ENDING POI NT OF A CONTINUOUS VIEWING STATION TO THE LEFT EDGE OF THE VIEWING FOCUS •. VERTICAL BOUNDAR IE S BOTTOM EDGE -A VERTICAL ARC WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BOTTOM EDGE FROM TH~ VIEWING STAT I ON ELEVATION Tb THE ~otAL POINT ELEVATION. FOR DISTANT FOCAL POINTS (J.E. CATALIN A AND MALIBU COASTLINE) A MINIMUM 2-0EGREE DOWN-ARC FROM HORtZONTAL WAS USED. • landmark vi ew c:orridor5 tiorlionlal boundPtlH parllal direct lull & ~lrec:t Y.!!rllc•! ionu IJ1P1 ~ zone 1 c•l•llna calallne D vl•w corridor horizontal edg•• li(IP1 f1iP1 l@iWl zone 1 CZJ ton• J THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ lo leool1Goo 13200 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 5 0 ( VISUAL CORRIDORS THIS SECTION DEALS WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VISUAL CORRIDORS WHICH HAVE DIMENSIONS FOR BOTH VISTAS AND VIE•S AS A FURTHER EXTENSION OF THEIR DEFINITION IN THE GENERAL PLAN. VISTAS, AS DEFINED, HAVE A VIEW~HG STATION, OBJECT OR OBJECTS .TO BE SEEN ANO AN INTERMEDI- ATE GROUND , VIEWS HAVE A VIEWING STATION BUT DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC FOCUS OR OBJECT TO BE SEEN. VIEWS HAVE BROAD FOCAL POINTS WHICH HAVE AN UNLIMITED ARC AND DEPTH. THE VISUAL CORRIDORS WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTI- FIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ARE DISCUSSED HERE ARE THOSE WHICH ARE ' cci.N:SIQE~EQ TO HAVE THE GREATEST DEGREE OF VISUAL VALUE ANO INTEREST TO THE "GREATE'sT 'NUMBER .OF 'vIEWERS1 AND ARE THUS A FUNCTION OF .PALO~ ~ERDES DRIVE AS THE PRIMARY VISUAL CORRIDOR ACCESSIBLE ,.,, THE GREATEST NUMBER OF VIEWERS, WITH \ EWS OF IRREPLACEABLE NATURAL .CHARACTER AND RECOGNIZED REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. PUBLIC VIEWING STATIONS WITHlN THE COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FROM WHICH A MAJORITY OF RPV RESIDENTS ANO VISITORS VIEW THE COMMUNITY ARE EITHER THE VEHICULAR CORRIDOR OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE OR TURNOUTS ALONG VEHICULAR CORRIDORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VIEWING. THUS, VIEWING STATIONS ARE1 J, CONTINUOUS -VIEWED ALONG THE PUBLIC CORRIDOR ·oF PALOS VER~~S DRIVE. 2. LOCALIZED -AS VIEWED FROM A SPECIFIC SITE OR TURNOUT. THE VIEWING FOCAL POINTS HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED AS EITHER SPECIFIC OR NON-SPECIFIC, WttICH IS THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF VISUAL ASPECTS (VISTAS AND VIEWS) DEFINED IN THE GENERAL PLAN. SP.ECIFIC VISUAL CORRIDORS HAVING BOTH A HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIMENSION HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR VISTAS. THE VISTA CORRIDORS HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THREE CATEGORIES BASED UPON THE FOCAL POINT'S ANGLE FROM THE DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE AND VISIBILITY OF THE FOCAL POINT. THE VISTA CORRIDORS ARE DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES1 l. DIRECT/FULL VISIBILITY -THE FOCAL POINT 15 ENTIRELY VISIBLE WITHIN A 0-32.5 DEGREE ANGLE• FROM THE DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT. 2. DIRECT/PARTIAL VISIBILITY -THE FOCAL POINT IS PARTIALLY OBSTRUCTED OR OBSCURED (I.E. CHAIN LINK FENCE OR VEGETATION) WITHIN A 0-32.5 DEGREE ANGLE• FROM THE DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT. 3. INDIRECT VISIBILITY -THE FOCAL POINT IS WITHIN A 32.5-90 DEGREE ANGLE• FROM THE Dl~ECTION OF MOVEMENT, OR A SECONDARY AREA OF VISION (I.E., 11 CORNER OF THE EYE'', PERIPHERAL). •THE ANGLE USED TD DEFINE DIRECT VS. INDIRECT VISIBILITY IS BASED UPON AN ASSUMED AVERAGE SPEED FOR TRAVEL ALONG THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE VEHICULAR CORRIDOR. THE DRIVER'S AS WELL AS THE PASSENGER'S ATTENTION IS DIRECTED FORWARD AND THE ANGLE OF VISION IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OF SPEED, THE CONE OF VISION AT A SPEED OF 45 MPH IS 65 DEGREES OR 32.S DEGREES TO EITHER SIDE. THIS ANGLE WAS USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DIRECT (0-32.5 C-9 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 5 1 figure 28 lyplcal aecUona C-12 •re v1rl•1 focal point ,,..,,;.zr---------4 Yl•I• ·~· .. ~":.~'/-"(.',;~·,,~~ ~'O'h ~~"·1":';.t · •l.';!_,,,..,: • ; "··'"····'·l'' .. · '·'• ~~::·:.;tr1~:;H~~ i~ fi((:;::.i.~··) .: '-:,:-~ ~ ~re -2 · ~~o~n~ _________ --) • 11lewlng •talion To PROTECT TH IS VISUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DRIVE AND OCEAN IN THOSE AREAS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF AN IDENTIFIED VISTA CORRIDOR, NO OUILDINGS SHOULD PROJECT INTO A ZONE MEASURED 2• DOWN-ARC FROM HORIZONTAL AS MEASURED ALONG THE SHORTEST 01STANCE BETWEEN THE VIEWING STATION ANO THE COASTLINE. NATURAL CORRIDORS SWCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN JN 1975, HORE DEFINITIVE CONSULTANT ANO STAFF STUDIES DEALING WITH VARIOUS COMP.ONENTS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT HAVE PROVIDED A SOMEWHAT MORE DETAILED DEFINITION OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND THE GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF THESE AREAS~ AS DESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SECTION OF THIS PLAN . HOWEVER, 13ECAUSE OF THEIR UNIQUELY DYNAMIC (CHANGING) CHARACTER. ANY ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PRECISE MEASURED BOUNDARIES HUST YIELD TO THE MORE GENERALIZED, BUT E~SILY VALIDATED METHODS OF FIELD INSPECTION COUPLED ~ITH HISTORICAL AND CURRENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND OTHER DOCUMENTING SOURCES. NATURAL CORRIDORS THUS CAN PERFORM SEVERAL SIG NIFICANT FUNCTIONS JN BOTH SHAPING AND SUPPORTING EXISTING ANO POTENTIAL LANO USES OF ALL TYPES, INCLUOfNGt PROVIDING LANDSCAPE/TOPOGRAPHIC RELJEF/ DEFINITION WITHIN DEVELOPED AREAS WHICH CAN SERVE AS A PROTOTYPICAL SYSTEM FOR DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPING SYSTEMS/THEMES WHICH ARE INTE~OEO TO BE ''NATURALIZED' 1 RATHER THAN HIGH-MAINTENANCE lN NATURE. /. A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 5 2 TOP EOGE -ASSUMED TO BE THE VPPER LIMIT, OR ZENITH OF A PERSON WITH NORMAL VISION VIEWING ON AN ESSEN- TIALLY HORIZONTAL PLANE. r~E HORIZONTAL DIMENSION OF THE THREE CATEGOR- !tS OF VISTA CORRIDORS IS DEFINED ON THE SUBREGION PLANS. THE VERTICAL DIMENSION (BOTTOM) IS DEFINED BY THE ACCOMPANYING SECTIONS. THIS VERTICAL DIMENSION IS TRANSFERRED TO THE PLANS IN TERMS OF ''HEIGHT ZONES''. THESE HEIGHT ZONES ARE DEFINED BY THE DISTANCE ·BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE VERTICAL ARC AND GROUND LEVEL AND ARE AS FOLLOWS1 ZONE 1 LESS THAN 16 1 ZONE 2 -16' TO 30' ZONE 3 -ABOVE 30 1 PLANS ANO SECTIONS WERE ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE CITY'S ESTABLISHED HEIGHT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORIES (I.E. SF LESS THAN 16 1 , MF LESS THAN 30 1 ). PLANS ANO SECTIONS DESCRIBING THE P.LANS WERE NOT PREPARED FOR SUBREGIONS 4 AND 8 SINCE 4 IS FULLY DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL AND 8 WILL REMAIN AS A NATURAL LAND AREA, HEJGtiT ZONES WERE NOT APPLIED TO SUBREGION S'S VISTA CORRIDOR SINCE THIS REGION WILL REMAIN AS A NATURAL LAND AREA ANO IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE PRECEDING VISTA CORRIDOR ANALYSIS IS INTEN DED TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A RANGE OF CHOICES AS TO THE COURSE OF ACTIONS fOR1 (1) THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PV DRIVE VISUAL (AND ACCESS/INFRASTRUCTURE) CORRIDOR (LAND - SCAPING, UNOERGROUNDING, VISTA POINTSl1 (2) THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL LAND ~REAS (LANDSCAPING, ETC.)t AND (3) THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY (ZONING) AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS NEEOEO TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE (OVERLAY DISTRICTS, DESIGN STANDARDS, DESIGN REVIEW) THE IDENTIFIED CORRIDORS. THE ''DIRECT/FULL VISIBILITY'' VISTA, BEING THE MOST VALUABLE, SHOULD RECEIVE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PRESERVATION PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENTa WITH THE HEIGHf ZONE~ ESTABLISHING ZONES OF DEVELOPMENT RE S TRICTION BASED UPON ZONING, A LARGE PORTION OF THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST/SOUTH/25TH STREET CORRIDOR HAS VISUAL ASPECTS WHICH QUALIFY AS VIEWS. THOSE SEC- TIONS OF THE DRIVE WHJCH HAVE OCEAN VIEWS QUALIFY HERE AND A MAJORITY OF THE LAND ON THE OFFSHORE SIDE FALLS WITHIN THE FOREGROUND OF SOME PORTION OF THE DRIVE WHICH rs A VIEWING STATION. figure 27 dl1lant views C-11 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 5 3 ,. INDICATED THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY ''AVOIDANCE'' CORRIDORS OR AREAS BASED UPON THE REQUIREMENT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES/PRESENCE BE EXCLUDED OR STRINGENTLY CONTROLLED DUE TO THE NEED TO PRESERVE VALUABLE/SENSITIVE NATURAL HABITATS ANO/OR TO AVOID GEOLOGIC DR OTHER LAND RELATED CONDITIONS INVOLVING HAZARD OR DANGER, SUCH AS THE SEA CLIFF EDGE. BECAUSE OF THESE CRITERIA. A NUMBER OF OTHERWISE RELATIVELY CONTINUOUS OR APPARENTLY USABLE CORRIDORS WITHIN THE COASTAL REGION ARE ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE CRITERIA INVOLVING ANY ACTIVE HUMAN USE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR PASSIVE USE (VISUAL). THE ACTUAL CORRIDOR YVNCTION OF THESE PROTECTION/PRESERVATION AREAS IS, EXCEPT IN LIMITED, CONTROLLED ACCESS SITUATIONS, THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUNCTION OF NATURAL AND VISU~L CORRIDO~S. TO WH1CH tH£Y,.BY T~EIR LOCATION AND EXTENT, ARE UNIQUELY SUITED. FDR EXAMPLE, AREAS IDENTIFIED AS EITHER SIGNIFICANT NATURAL SYSTEMS OR UNSAFE AREAS, IN BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN ANO THIS PLAN, HAVE A NUMBER OF LINEAR CHARACTERISTICS WHICH, WHILE THEY ARE HAZARDOUS TO HUMANS OR SHOULD BE PROTECTED F~OM HUMANS, PROVIDE EXCELLENT ELEMENTS OF A TOTAL MULTIFUNCTIONAL CORRIDORS SYSTEM. AREAS WHICH ARE DELINEATED AS PROTECTION/ PRESERVATION CORRIDORS INCLUDE1 • SLOPES ABOVE 35X WHICH ARE RELATIVELY ·CONTINUOUS IN NATURE (ANO WHOSE GEOLOGY MIGHT PERMJ~ LIMITED P~DESTRIAN ACCESS 'CORR IOORS . '1 F APP.ROPR l 0ATE > ,' 9 CATEGORY lA OF THE GEOLOGIC FACTORS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NATURAL ENVIRON- MENT SECTiaNl WHICH IS DEFINED AS POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOR HUMAN PASSAGE . ALL AREAS DESIGNATED AS HAVING HABITATS SENSITIVE TO HUMAN INTRUSION (TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE). THE ACCOMPANYING ILLUSTRATION (FIGURE 30) IN- DICATES THE LOCATION OF PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDORS. BECAUSE OF THEIR NATURE AS AVOIDANCE CORRIDORS, ND PLANNING OR DESIGN CRITERIA APPLY TO THESE AREAS EXCEPT THOSE WHICH WOULD IMPACT THEM DUE TO ACTIONS IN ADJACENT AREAS, THUS1 .. WHERE A PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDOR IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO AN AREA INVOLVING HUMAN USE (ACCESS, HABITATION). SOME BUFFER AREA SHOULD BE DESIGNED/PLANNED/ MAINTAINED SO AS TO ~VOID ADVERSE IMPACTS. CO MPOSITE CORRIDORS COMPOSITE CORRIDORS REPRESENT COMBINATIONS OF TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUAL CORRIDOR TYPES INTO MULTJFUNCTJONAL OR COMPOSITE FUNCTION CORRIDORS. THE SE COMBINATIONS CAN BE OF TWO TYPES1 ''OVERLAY'' -JN WHICH THE F UNCTIONS EXIST WITHIN THE SAME RIGHT -OF -WAY, OR GENERALLY ·DEFI NE D EASEMENT, OR ''OVERLAID'' ON A BASE OR PRIMARY CORRIDOR FUNCTION. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE A COMBINED INFRASTRUCTURE/ACCESS CORRIDOR JN WHICH TH E ACCESS FUNCTION (STREET, PEDESTRIAN C-15 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 5 4 C-16 PATHl IS LITERALLY "'OVERLAID'' ON THE uNDERGROUNDEO UTl~ITIES, WHILE ANOTHER M[Gt1T BE A VISUAL CORR JOOR 1 'OVERLAID'' ON ANY ONE OF THE OTHER TYPES. ''PARALLEL'' -IN WHICH THE FUNCTIONS EXIST IN PARALLEL, OR RELATIVELY ADJA- CENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS/LINEAR AREAS EITHER BECAUSE OF INHERENT INCOM- PATIBILITY (A PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRlOOR ADJACENT TO AN ACCESS CORRIDOR FOR EXAMPLE> OR BECAUSE OF JURISDIC- TIONAL, OWNERSHIP, FUNCTIONAL, OR NATU- RAL ENVIRONHENT FACTORS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN SEPARATED, 11 PARELLEL'' CORRIDORS. protecUon/preaervatlon corridor_. ADDITIONALLY, COMPOSITE CORRIDORS CAN BE CLASSIFIED IN TERMS OF THE DEGREE OF IN- TENDED CONTROL OVER HUMAN USE OF THE CORRIDOR, RANGING .FROM 7HE UNRESTRICTED HUMAN USE WITHIN ACCESS CORRIDORS, THROUGH THE CONTROL OF HUMAN USE BY LTHITATIONS ON HEIGHT ANO PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES IN VISUAL CORRIDORS, TO THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF HUMANS FROM PROTECTION/PRESERVATION CORRIDORS. IT IS THE .POLI CY OF THE CITY TO 1 REOUI RE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN AREAS WHICH MIGHT IMPACT CORRIDORS TO ANALYZE THE SITE CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ANO OBTAIN FEASIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL CORRIDOR GUIDELINES. ~ ..::. Htrem• 9eolo9lc; a.eza111 / extreme a lap• nalural wegotition/habilal ( I marine 111&ou1co Hit: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ lo faoof 1600 13200 A t t a c h m e n t s 3 - 3 5 5 - I STATE OF CALIFOR:,_ .·NATURAL RESOURCES .4.GENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION · South C0&sl Aree Omce 200 Oceangate , Suite 1000 Long Boech, CA 90602-4302 (562) 590·5071 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVEllNOR Waiver of the 49 Day Rule for an Appeal of a Local Government's Final Action on a Coastal Development Permit Local Government Application Number. -..c1=-=-0_J-=1'----=-0...:;:..0_/_L_(_/ _____ _ Coastal Commission Appeal Number: A -$"'-R P V -f 2 -35~ Applicant Name: Mr. (),f\ I M ('~. 1<6 0 >I()., Appeal Filing Date: _____ / _'2 ....... / ....... 1 __ (--../_Z_~ ___ f_...2.__ ______ -----' ___ _ I, the applicant or authoriz.ed representative hereby wa ive my or the Applicant's right to a hearing within 49 days after the application or appeal has been filed with the Coastal Commission . Public Resources Code Sections 30621, 30625 (a). I request that the referenced application be scheduled: ( ) for consideration at the neXt possit:>le Southern California Commission meeting. ( ) for consideration at the next possible Northern California Commission meeting . I understand that the application may need to b·e scheduled without regard to the Southern/Northern California preference. ( ) for consideration after staff and I have had additional time to d iscuss the project. THIS FORM SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER Signature of applicant or authorized agent Attachments 3-356 LETTER TO COAS TAL CO MMISSION - This is in r esponse to your letter and Reasons supporting the Appeal. 1. Your first reason for the appeal is , the proposed project raises an issue as to consistency with the v isual resources protection policies and that the proposed project has a significant adverse impact on the existing protected ocean views . The propo sed prcJect h acl ob]E'ct 1on b y the cit y fo r tne s ame reasons when w e 1rn t1a lly proposed the height of the house l o be 16 as per guideline an d our ngt1t t o bu 1ll W e dropped th e heig ht t o 14 s· and a lso m ov ing the bu1l d1ng 10 fee t more towards the back yard . As a resu lt there was clea r ocean view above t he ndg e line as viewed from the P V drive (so uthbound). and abso lutely unobst ruc ted vie w as vie wed from P V drive ( northbound ) T hi s was surv eyed an d approved by t he city without any objection from nei ghbor. 2. Your second reason for the appeal is ... To protect the visual relationship between the drive and Ocean view in those areas which are part of an identified Vista Corridor. no building should project into zone measuring 2' down -arc from horizontal. However ,the City approved the proposed project with height exceeding by 8 .73'. Large se ction of P V drive north / south bound 1s cu rving and does not have visual refat1o ns h1p be1ween the d r ive and Oc eari view More ov er the subject property does not fie with in spec1ficaf1y designated vi ew co rri dor By dropping t h e height by 8 7 3· an d rn aking the house w ithin 2 ' down-arc. 1s only possible i f we make H ob bit House . Ex plonng ali the possrb1!1ty eve n if we are able to rnake such house 1t w ill take s1gr11f1 c a'1t arno unt of Grading and driveway that will be more than 20%> down slope . w hi ch 1s not pract;ca l and wi ll never get approved by Fire Department for such s teec s!o p e 3 . Your third objection for the appeal is ... proposed 10,382 sq ft home is larger than the average of the 20 closet homes in the area and is inconsistent with the visual protection policies of the certified LCP . The neighbor h ouses 1n l he area are on differe nt s iz e lots The newer houses built on the west of the P .V dnve and on Ma r guerite drive are on half acre to one acre lots. The houses bu ilt on tlie or.e acre lots are ov e r 10 000 s q fe et w hile the houses bu i lt on half ac re lots a re 7 000 to 8000 s q f eet The two hou se~ o n north of our property on P V drive . 3300 P .V drive and G Margue ri te dnve and o n ~ add1t 1o nal house on Marguerite dr ive are all ne w con str ucl1o n h ous es are ove1 I 0. 000 s q feet Ail the three houses are in view corrid or and were approve d L1 y C oast r.il Comrni s ~r o n wit h two s tory. 23 height cl earl y obs tructing 1a 1·ge pori 1or. of Oc~an view As a new neighbor in Palos Verdes I certainty want to keep harmony and good relationship with the neighbors That is the reason I have full support and cooperation from neighbors I also don't want to build anything that is not consistent with the Attachments 3-357 neighbors houses , and it would t unfair if Costa! Commission ask me to m::ike Hobbit house on such great location It 1s going to be our dream and possibly our lei:;! house so we want it to be practical and spaceous without obstructing any body's view. At this point we would request Coastal Commission t o approve the project witho ut lowering the height . We will try to push the house further by few feet m back yard to lower the ridgeline by another one feet. Attachments 3-358 February 4 . 2013 John Del Arroz Coastal Program Anal yst California Coastal Commission South Coast District 200 Oceangate. I 01h Floor Long Beach, Ca 90802-4416 Re: Khosla Residence 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Rancho Palos Verdes Conunission Appeal No. A-5-RPV-12-350 Dear John : This letter is in response to the appeal filed by t he California Coastal Commission and provides reasons and information supporting the proposed above-referenced project: 1. The appeal states, .. the proposed pr~jcc t raises an issue a s lo consistem:y with the v isual resources protection policies and that the proposed project has a significant adverse impact on the existing protected ocean views·· a. The original proposed project was submitted w ith a 16 ' height as allowed by the city development code. Following City Planning Commission concerns regarding adverse impact. the building was lowered and moved Io· West (back). After these changes were made , the City determined there was no adverse impact on the ocean views. b . There are clear ocean views as viewed from a vehicle headed Southbound on Palos Verdes Drive as seen over the rear portion of the subject lot and absolutely unobstructed views above the structure as viewed from Palos Verdes Drive (Northbound). <.:. The proposed project site is a single-family residential site which had an original residential structure on it. This original structure and significant landscape lhat have since been removed have now provided an open view across this now vacant lot which is not typical in any single-family residential redevelopment area. Attachments 3-359 2. Secondly, the appeal sL:Ues. ·To protec1 the visual relationship between the drive and ocean view in those areas which are part of an identi tied Vista Corridor. no bui l<ling should project into zone measuring 2° do~11-arc from horizontal. However, the City approved the propo sed projec t with height exceeding by 8.73" ". a . A scc1ion of Palos Verdes Drive North (Southbound) is c urving in front of the subject s ite . Because of this curving street, a vehicle traveling Southbound does not have a chance to look Westerly over the subject lot while maneuvering this turn safely . However , a vehicle can clearly view the ocean across the rear of the subject lot as traveling Southbound . b. Dropping the height of the proposed structure by 8. 73' and making the house below the 2° down-arc, would require the current house design to increase grading over 3.500 cubic yards for the structure alone and an additional 6,400 cubic yards for the driveway and yard areas with a drop in the existing structure by this amount. The driveway will be much brreater than 20% downslope. which is not practical and will never get approved by the Fire Depurtment for such a steep slope . c . The project site is a pad lot \.vhich sits below the street level. Each foot of grading required to lov.er this building pad increases grading by approximately I. I 00 cubic yards . d. Grading down the lot will create significant drainage issues and geological instability which would compromise many of the surrounding properties. This project is located on a natural slope with a relatively level pad area for the structure. e . While researching other single-family rcsidcn1iaJ homes, specifically along Palos Verdes Drive located in the coastal area. there are NO other single-family residential projects that comply with the 2° down-arc. including two new projects located directly North of the subject site at 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West and #6 Marguerite. 3. Thirdly. the appeal states , "proposed I 0.382 sq . ft. home is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes in the area and Attachments 3-360 is inconsistent with the visual protection policies of the certified LCP". a. The neighboring houses in the area arc on significantly di fferenl sized lots . The larger building sites, located on the West side of Palos Verdes Drive, which have newer homes bui It on them are typically one half to one acre sites . The newer houses built on these lot<> are over I 0,000 sq . ft . while the houses built on the East side of Palos Verdes Drive are much smaller homes and built on smaller lots . b. The two houses directly North of the subject property on Palos Verdes Drive. 3300 Palos Verdes Drive and 6 Marguerite Drive , have been constructed in the last eleven years and are direct relationships to the proposed project as far as lot size and building size. An additional home that has also been constructed along Palos Verdes Drive . located in the coastal area is #3 Yacht Club . The following three homes provide information that relates to the proposed development that have been constructed within the last eleven years that are located along Palos Verdes Drive : 3300 Palos Verdes Drive Approved as appealable coastal area 48.684 lot size I 2.819 sq. fl. building size #6 Margut!rite Approved ai; non-appealable coastal area 50,565 lot size I 1,3 I 6 sq . ft. building size #3 Yacht Ha rbor Approved as appcalable coastal area I 8. 8 acre lol size 15,425 sq . ft. building size As you can see. these three examples of newer homes, built on similar lots, are all located along Palos Verdes Drive and within the coastal zone. However , none of these three recently-built homes conform to the 2° down-arc . , Attachments 3-361 Mr. and Mrs . Khosla have looked at many properties and found this lot to be the perfect location . As owners and residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, they ask to he granted the same rights to develop their new home like other homes in tht! City . They do not want to build anything. that is not consistent with the neighbors· houses, and it would be unfair for the Coastal Commission to require addi tional lowering and grading of the lot that is not consistent with other approvals that have been granted by th e Coastal Commission . Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Attachments 3-362 Louie. Plcasl' lind Lh c following po1nls in re:,pon se 10 ~o ur lcllcr. I th ink nnee \\t' get Sl)JTic additional e\ idcrtcl'.. \\ e'll bt' in good shape for a met•ting fl) di!'>cus:-. the t'\'iJt'nce. 1. Your letter states that there are clear ocean views from PV Drive , viewed ove r the rear of the structure. Please send evidence of this -if there are good photos of the site when the story poles are up, and these show what you're talking about, that would be fine . PLEASE SEE GRAPHIC LAYOUT OF HOUSE AS SEEN FROM P.V DRIVE NORTH AND SOUTH AND OCEAN VIEW FROM BOTH LEVEL OF THE DRIVE. PLC::..3E SEE THE PICTURES OF THE SILLOUTE AND THE RIDGE LINE. 2. You state that lowering the house would result in greatly increased grading amounts. Do you have current and alternative grading plans to depict what would occur under the current proposal, and what would occur if the house was lowered? IT WILL NOT ONLY INCREASE THE GREAOING BUT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WILL GO EXTREML Y HIGH. INCREASE GRADING WOULD MEAN HIGHER RETANING WALLS, GREATER RISK OF FLOODING AND STEEP DRIVEWAYS. 3. What specific provision of the Fire Code or Municipal Code would conflict with the driveway grade which you cite in your letter? AS PER FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE MARSHAL RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY STANDARDS .....•. Roadways and driveway driving surfaces shall be designed and constructed with an all weather driving surface. This surface shall consist of; -6 inch ballast orgravel base, which may need to be increased dependingon the suitability of the native material, with a 2 inch minimum depth of compacted crushed surfacing top course. There shall be 2 % crown slope at the center line and the compaction of the material shall be such that it has a load c~pacityof 75,000 lbs. Maximum grade of the roadway or driveway shall not exceed 12 %. An}· gradient greaiter then 12% shall require the approval of the Rancho PVFD and the Fire Marshal.A gradient over 12 % will also require additional mitigation measures, su bjcct to the approval of the PVFD and the Fire Marshal. Gradient changes or transitions shull be limited to 7% or less to accommodate the wheelbase of fire and EMS apparatus body frame beyond the rear axle. Attachments 3-363 THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY IS ALREADY AT 12% GR.\.DE AND EXCF.SS GRADING WILL RESULT OVER 20 % SLOPE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR FIRE TRUCK TO ACCESS THE HOUSE IN CASE OF EMERGANCY. 4. Is directing drainage down towards Marguerite Drive possible? What evidence do you have of potentia l geologic instability? NOT SURE IF CONNECTING THE DRAINAGE TO MARGUERITE DRIVE I S POSSIBLE AS THIS PROPERY IS OUT SIDE THE PARAMETERS OF ASSOCIATION AND WILL BE OBJECTION TO THE ASSOCIATION. THE HOUSE ON SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE BUILDING AND SWIMMING POOL THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERY LINE. EXCESSIVE GRADING ON OUR SIDE WILL RESULT IN MOVING THE SOIL ON THE NEIGHBOUR LOT. 5. The letter does not address what eithe r 1) moving the house back away from the street, would look like, and 2) what an alternative design or size of house might do to the height of the house . AT THE TIME OF GETTING THE PLANS APPROVED FROM THE CITY WE ADDRESS BOTH THE ISSUES. AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY WE MOVE THE STRUCTURE 10 FEET INSIDE. ALSO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE WAS REDUCED BY 500 SQ FEET. ALL THE CHANGES WERE MADE TO MAINTAIN THE VISUAL IMPACT AND MAINTAIN THE VIEW. ALL THE PLANS ARE FINAL AND ANY CHANGE AT THIS TIME WOULD MEAN MORE WORKING HOURS AND COST GOING UP. Where on the site was the previous house located? THE PREVIOUS HOUSE WAS LOCATED TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT AND WAS BUILT ON THE EXISTING GRADE. THE PREVIOUS HOUSE HAD LOT OF TREES ANO SHRUBS ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT WERE AS HIGH AS NEIGHBOUR ON THE SOUTH OBSTRUCTING THE VIEWS 7. \V e ha\c some research tu do \\ilh regards tn th\'. other house-; 1hat you cite us pem1itt~d in the last 11 )"c'ars -our dectronic Jat.ihase cntri~s don 'l go back thal far. Howe\'e r. ont! or1hi.: h1)USCS cit~d. 3 ya chl harbor. ()ffcrs only minimal ohstrncLin11tn1)ce a11 vie•,s. lf there ""''s a site dt'sign tha1 o ffrrcd a -;imilar view from Palo"> Vt·rJl·s Dri\·c, that ma: hl' <l go1)d area to pursue. Attachments 3-364 Standards for Fire Department Vehicle Acces s -un-096 .pdf http://www unidocs .urg/fire!tm-096 .pdl ST A NDA RDS F OR F I RE D EPARTl\I EN T YE Hi' '1._,E A C CE SS For Cs.• BL·VI J11nsd101m1s C'1r1t•s 011tl Co1111f\· W1r/1111rlic•l1mrrs of Sa11ra Clara Co111m · A11rl10nf1 ( '1ted c'11/{fo1111a Frr,, Cod,• 1CF( '; <. '<1/ifon1111 f 'e/11cle ('ode 1CT ·c. '1 Tile fr•lh)\\'lltg il t<u1drn·d 1<len11tie:-: t11 e lt"{l\l!Ieme n t:-: fo1 Fue fl~p:uhuent \·eJucle acce:-::-: \\ 11erc n o ted . contact the l1i c il fut :i~ency for fmthe1 mfo1111nholl :md appHn -;11 Access and Loading Fnctl1tH:·:-1, b1uldm~"'· 01 prn1wn.-' (•f bmldmg,: hereat1e1 t'Olt.,trnt'ted :>hall be :icct .. ~,.:1l1k IL) fue depa1b11enl npparnh1:; by way of ;1n <1ppwwd tlr.: apparnh1 il ac~e~:-: wad with nn <l:'phalt. concn:le . ni L)lher apprm·ed driYmg i-111face ca pable of :-:11pportrng tht-1111pl)i1 ed lond of lire apparntus we1gJun)l: ;:it lea il t -5 .uoo pound ~ (3-1 .0:'0 kp:J or a,: othenn,:e de1ennrned by tl1e Fm~ l.\)de official l\linimum C'leo:ir Width. 11ie 11ummtm1 clear width of fiie dep;utment <1cce~;,! mad:: :'hall be 20 foet (6.0C.>6 llllll) nu~ w1dth may be mcie:i::ed ba :'e<l np1)JI :-'pec1fk dt-pcu1ment ope1:it10n~ and 01 apparnti.1 :-: . ..\Jternall.' cle~1~l.-' may be applo\'ed on a ca~e-hy-ca:-:c ha~1:-1 Uodifo .. '<lllo1ui to the conti~m:ition 01 width of n tire ncce;::: 1 o:ld . 0r ndchtional acce:::-: mad(;:;) may be req1ur\'.'d when the Fi t e Code official determme~ tlL.1l acce:-1:< to the ;:-'lte or n po1tio11 thereof may become compronw:ecl due to emergency opernholl:: 1l1 ne:nby n'1hual l'r mmunade hnz..1nl:> (e g . tloo<l prone are<lt!. railway crn;;:~ut~:-1 . bndge foih11e~. hazmdon:: 111atennl-1elaled uictdenb'. ek) The width of ;:;econdm-y acce;':; wacb may be red need to le:-::< lhnn 2<1 feet 16.096 mm) prl1\ ide.I that turnout " nre rnslalled ad1acent to llte wadwa~· e,·ery :'fiO feet , m th a muunnun chmenswn l )f IO feet l 3 .0.+8 nun l w1<lt- an<l ~()feet (12 .192 uuu l lon~ (11 ll:: l)thenn::e dde1rnuwd hy th~ File Code o:tli.c1al 3 l'\Iinimum Cl~r Height. f\I1mmnm Yethcrtl dt'<11ance l1Ye1 n:quut>d H:luculai acce:":-1 mad..; and d11Yewn y ~ shall bt' I 3 · 6 .. ( ·U l .' 111111 l -t Grade. Fne appnrntns ncce::,..; rnnds shall 1101 txceed I l)•l u Ill i:rrnde. nnle:-1:: app10Yal l:' µante cl by the F11 e Code .officinl p1wi ll) cimstrucllon " Turning Rmlius The muumtu11 tummg rnd1u.-: ~halJ he determmed by the Fue Code officL1l t'i Dead Ends. Dead-end fire nppriratu:< acce?-:~ rond:" rn ex.ce:-:s of J::.o foet (-l:',-20 mm) ::hall be pnn1<led with \ndtJ1 and turn.aro1md pron~rnn.<! a.<: dclewuned by ll1e Fue ('ode otlic1nl Parking. When parking is pernulted c•n :"lleets . m both 1 ~:-:idenhal commercrnl npplJcab.on:-:, 1t shall confi.)rm fl) the followrnp.. a Parb.ng ~ pemutted l1ll lk)lh :.'Jde:< ,1f the :-:treet with ilti·eet w1dtlt" of )Ci fo~I <I 0,9-j HUH l 01 mo1e h P:ukrng: 1.0.: penmtted on one sHie oflhe :-1 t1et-f with ilfleet w1<lth:-1 of ~S l1:i 3'i feet l!:<.:'3-1to10 .668 mm l c No p:ukin~ ii' l.lt'l1lll Heel wJ1en ~·ttee t \rtdth~ :u e 1~:-: U1:u1 '.:'.8 foet ( 8,5 3-1 mm) f.\'ut.1 Roll<'d curbs t'<lll be parf of l!J<' c 111-I• .ml1'1rt1lk muf used !O 111<T 1111se 1/w mod11·r·n · 11 1d1!1 H it/J rtpprcnal (ro111 rlie Fm• Code r?tfiool .-ldrltno110/ rec1wre11w111s 111m opph fi.>1 b11rld111gs 3V.fi1 et 1 G.J ././ 1111111 111 !ie1ght o r ,f!;7ea1t•r St>•' req11irc 111te111s 1111dcr 1re111JV 1.-lernd Fire A1p11r11111s .-i((c'SS Roods ,.] UN-090 10 06 ()9 Attachments 3-365 DR I VE\vAY STANDARDS.ashx hn p:::www.placer.ca .gov.'Departmencs -'C ommuni tyDeve I opmcnV Bui I .. I nf "1 COUNTY Of PLACER Community Q-.. el opment/ Re-source A~dncy B UILDING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY STANDARDS 30' IWNIUMUM SETBACK FOR A ll BUll..OO~GS FROM PROPERTY LINES OR CENTER O F ROAD FOR LOTS 1 ACRE OR LARGm l!D' MAXIMUM BElWEEH TURNAROUND AHO BUILOING. -40 ' MINIMUM RADIUS AT CfllTER LINE OF DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRE;;D TURNAROUND, EITI-ER HAMMERHEAD·T OR TERMINUS BULB, WHEN DRIVEWAY EXCEEDS 300', __. BRIDGES AHO CULVERTS AT YEAR-ROUND S~EAMS SHAL BE DESIGl'<IED BY AN ENGINEER AHO CONSTRUCTED TO CARRY A MtNIMUM LOAD OF 40,000 POONOS PER DPW BPECIRCATIONS.OTHER Clll.VERTIS CA" BE SIZED !SY A CLASS A eoNlRACTOR. llONI ARE TO BE POSTED TO ISKOW WEIGHT LIMIT, vamc1..£ CLEARANCES, AND ONE· WAY OR llNtlLE LANE CONDITIONS. BEfl'ARATE PERMfr8 NE REQUIRED FOR ENOINEERED OESIGHS GATE TO BE :Z' WEER THAN DRIVEWAY,~· •NIMUM FROM THE ROAD AHD TO jl,l_LOW THE VE .. CLE TO STOP ON 1l£ DRIVEWAY WrTHOllr DWELLING OBSTRUCTINO TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD. ~ ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUIRED FROM OPW WHEN DRIVEWAY JOINS A PUBU::;.::_c _________ ,_ ROAD ; PER Df'W SPECIFICATIONS. (Rer: STD Plate R-17 or STD Plate R-1 8) REQUIREMENT$ AIU: Mttl l MUM UNLESS SU. PERSEOED BY SUBOIVISIONIPARCEL MAP APPROVALS . DRIVEWAY WHEH BULDINGIS MQfil.JHAH 50 ' FROM lli£ ROA?: THE GRAD E IS NOTTO EXCEED 11% {SEE DRIVEWAY EXCEPTION). 11>' MlNUfUN DRIVEWAY WIDTli, 15' MNMUM VERTICLE ClEARANCES. THE MINIMUM CENTER LINE RADIUI ON CURVES IS 40'. ONE DRIVEWAY SHAU. SERVE NOT MORE THAN 2 BUILDlNGS MTH KO Mau: THAN l DWELLING U ltlTS AND ANY NUllBER OF ACCESSORY DUILD· INGS. THE ORIVEW~Y MUST BE All WEATifERAND SUPPORT A 40,000 LB Vl:Hl - CLE . MINIMllM RECOMM ENDED SURFACING ON A DO% COMPACTED IOIL lS r' OF AIJ . OREG ATE BASE. Al,J'ERNATE SURFACING DESICJNS MAY BE PERMITTED FROM AN 9'· OlltEER OR Cl.ASS A cotil~TOR CERTI · FYIHG THE DRIVEWAY WIU IUPPORT A 40,000 POUND \tEWICLE AHO BE ALL· WEATHER. EXCEPTION: WHEN APPROVED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT, DRIVEWAYS BETWEEN •M-"· AHO 2CW.lllAY BE N,LQWEDWH£N SUREQD WITll APPROVED ASPHALT OR CONCRETE . DRIVEWAYS OVER 20% GRADE REQUIRE FIRE DEPARTMEN T APPROVAL P AlOR T 0 FOUNOATION INSPECTION f>ROlllDE A TURNOlJf AT MIDPOINT OF DRIVEWA.Y, UllESURFACEAti DRIVEWAY, WHEN l'HE DRIVEWAY EXCEEDS 150'. DRIVEWAYS LESS l'HAH 4Clll' MAY OMIT TURNOUT WHEN FULL SIGHT Dl8T~E ISMAINTAINED. JF DRIVEWAY EXCEEDS &oo ' T\JRNOUTS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 400' APART; TU~OUTTO BE 10' WIDE BY 30' LONG WITH A •NlllllU M TAPER AT EACH END. 501.2 AOOAESS NUMQERS. 8UIU1'NGB SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUM- BERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUii.DiNG ICEHTIFICATION PLACED JN A PO- amOH THAT IS Pi..u.LY LEGIBLE AHO VISI· Bl.E FROlll THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACl<GROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABETIC.AL lETtEAS. NUMBER& SHALL !EA MINIMUM OF .C " HIGtl WITH A MINIMUM !TROKE WIDTH OF G.ll INCH. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD Wtb SHe Addren: htt!);/NIWV(.Qllct[.Ci.gOV Email: bulldtnpOpllCtf.CaGOy Attachments 3-366 DRIVEWAY STANDARDS .ashx http :/ ;\'rW v. .placer. ca .gov /Departm::ms,.Corrununi tyDevelopmenl/B ui I ... GENERAL NOTES The Placer Count y Building Department enfor ces the Fire-Safe standards that are trig gered by the euildlng Permll This includes the driveway, driveway gates, any bridges or culverts in the driveway, the setbacks for fire-safety and the addressing of the building/driveway. CODES : Lisled below are sections extracted from TrtJe 14. These section6 are enforced by the Building Department. Following certain secbons are NOTES These are intended to reflect Building Oepartmenl interpretations and guidelines. As new cond1t1ons arise, these interpretations are subject to revision. ARTICLE 1. ADMINISTRATION : §1270 02-Scope. These regulations do not apply to existing structures, roads, streets and private lanes or taalit1es . These regulahons shall apply as appropriate to all construction within Placer County approved after January 1, 1992. Affected activities include but are not ltmited to: (a) Pennitting or approval of new parcels, excluding 101 line adjustments as specified in Government Code §66412(d), (b) application for a building permit for new construction , not relating lo an existing structure, (c) application for a use pennit, (d) placemen! of manufactured homes (manufactured homes are as defined by the National Fira Protection Association, National F ire Code, §501A, Standard tor Fire Life Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home lnstatlat1ons, Sites and Comtnunilies. Chapler 1. Section 1-2. Definitions. page 4 , 1987 edition and Health and Safely Code §18007, §18008 and §19971), (e) road construction, including construction of a road that does not currently ex1s1. or extension or an existing road Note: Department Policy The Phrase "not relating to an existing structure" means· "not relating to an extsttng approved primary structure•. Exam plea of work which OOGGER THE FIRE·SAFE REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. New residence -unless it is replacing as existing legal residence and using the same driveway. 2 New mobile home -unless it is replacing an existing legal residence and using the same driveway. 3 First structure constructed on the parcel that requires a Building Permit 4. Construction of an accessory building to be used for commercial purposes -anything beyond a "home occupati\,11" as defined by zoning ordinance. 5. Second residential units. {These are tnggered also by the use permit process} 6 . Conversions or an agriculture building or accessory building lo a single family dwelling. Examples of WORK WHICH IS GENERALLY EXEMPT from the Fire.Safe $1andard3 are as followa: 1. Addition to an existing building {However, additions cannot be subsequently built inlo a f ire-safe setback requ ired of the original structure). 2 Remodels . 3 Accessory Structures. (However, accessory structures cannot be subSequently built into a fire-safe set back requ ired by the original structure} "· Fire -damage repair/rebuild, wtlen the application involves lhe same owner and the existing driveway is being used 5 Replacement of mobile home with a newer s ingle or double unit on the same pad location and the existing drivewa1 is being used. §1270.07 -Exceptions to ataodards. Upon request by the applicant. exceptions to standards w ithin this subchapter and mitigated praclices may be allowed by the inspection authority, where the exceplion provides the same overall practical effect as these regulations towards providing defensible space . §1270 06 -Requests for Exceptions. Requests for exception shall be made lo Caf Fire by the applicant or the applicant's representative . The request shall state the specific section (s) for which an exception is requested, material facts supporting the contention of the applicant the details of the exception or m1tigat1on measure proposed, and a map shOWing lhe proposed location and sitting of the exception or mitigation measure Attachments 3-367 \Vorksp:Ke Webmail :: Print http~:/:ema i 104 .secure server.nclivie" _print _ multi .php?uidArray=9M .. Print I Close Window Subject: RE: Khosla Appeal From : "Dttl Arroz, John@Coastal" <John.OelArroz@coast.al.ca.gov> Date : Wed , Feb 27 , 2013 8 :41 pm To : "l oulet@tomaro .com" <louiet@tomaro.com>, "mail@ravikhosla.com " <mail@ravikhosla.com> Louie , Please find the following points in respome to your letter. I think once we get some additional evidence, we 'll be in good shape for a meeting to discus ~ the evidence . GKN'HiL 1. Your letter states that there are clear ocean views from PV Drive, viewed over the rear of the LA'1 (,JD r ).... structure. Please send evidence of this -1f there are good photos of the site when the story poles are (i~ Or "::..iv,,WI 1 ... ~up , and these show what you're talking about, that would be fine. 2. You state that lowering the house would result in greatly increased grnding amounts. Do you have r::.vq:;;. ,;;-. current and alternative grading plans to depict what would occur under the current proposal, and what "'"' -::-::>GtU'°',J ... would occur 1f the house WCIS lowered? NO r ?l!A-:f . ....A._. f,,.JAJ '-' 1-\...._, 3 What s.,-:cific provision of the Fire Code or Municipal Code would conflict with the driveway gr;ide which you cite 1n your letter? 4. Is directing drainage down towards Marguerite Drive possible' What evidence do you have of potential geologic instability? N61~,.&·~~ <;:.....,,), lt'IM 1 "'. <'X-·-).. (1()J.,.:.e. roe w...D:>1E- lro.J1,..:.'f jrti-5 . The letter does not address what either 1) moving the house back away from the street, would took ff:,.~~ 1o.11L. ..... ~~(like, and 2) what an altern;ihve design or size of house m1~ht do to the height of the house. fD)t:. AJ-1 f rfl ~ Where on the site was the previous house located? 7 . We have some research to do with regards to the other houses that you cite as permitted in the last 11 year5 -our electronic databcise entrie~ don't go back that for. However, one of the houses cited, 3 yacht harbor, offers only minimal obstruction to ocean views . If then~ was a site design that offered a similar view from Palm Verdes Drive, that may be a good area to pursue John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst Califorria Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 From: Louie Tomaro lmailto:louiet@tomaro.com] Sent: Tuesday, f=ebruary 26, 2013 B:2B AM To: Del Arroz, John@COastal Cc: mfill.@.l"!!Yi!sb_os.la_.com Subject: 3344 PVD W John . Good morning Just thought I woud check in with you lo see if you have any comments for us on the letter that was sent to you a few weeks back. Thank you for the update Louie Tomaro, AIA, LEED AP Attachments 3-368 V.•orkspac e Webmail :: Prim http s:/lernail04 .sccurescrver.net/view _pr int _ mu hi .php ?uidArray= 124 .. Print I Close Window Subject: RE: Khosla Appear From : "Del Arroz, John@!Coastal" <John.De IArroz@coastal.ca .gov> Date : Wed, Feb 27, 2013 8:-41 pm To : "louiet@tomaro.com " <louiet@tomaro.com>, Mmail@ravikhosla.com " <mail@ravikhoala .com> Louie , Plea se find the following points in re sponse to your letter. I think once w e get some additional evidence, w e'll be in good shape for a meeting to d i~cuss the evidence. J . Your letter states that there a re dear ocean views from PV Drive, viewed ove r the rear of the structure . Please send evidence of this -if there are good photos of the site when the story poles are up, and these show what you're talking about, that would be hn e . 2 . You state that lowering the house would result in greatly incre as ed grad mg amounts . Do you have current and alternative grading plans to depict what would occur under the current proposal, and what would occur if the house was lowered? 3 . What specific provision of the Fire Code or Municipal Code would conflict with thE. driveway grade which you cite in your letter? 4 . Is directing drainage down tow<irds Marguerite Drive possible? What evidence do you have of potential geologic instability ? 5 . The letter does not address what e ither 1) moving the house back away from the street, would look like, and 2) what an alternative design or size of hou se might do to the height of the house . 6 . Where on the site wcis the previous house located? 7 . We have some research to do with regards to the other houses that you cite as permitted in the la st 11 years -our electronic di:ltab;is~ entriei. don't go back that far. However, one of the houses cited, 3 yacht harbor, offerl> only minimal obstructio n to ocean vi ews . If there wa s a s ite design that offered a similar view from Palos Verdes Drive, that may be a good area to pursue . Jom Del Arrez Coastal Program Analyst Galifomia Coastal Commission 200 Oceangale 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562} 590-5071 From: Louie Tomaro [m.C!i!tP :louiet@tomaro,com] Sent: Tuesday, f-ebruary 26, 2013 8:28 AM To: Del Arroz, John@Coastal Cc: 1DJ'3j!@~qli'.*hosla .qim Subject: 3344 PVD W John. Good morning . Just thought I wolid check in with you to see 1f you have any comments for us on the letter that was sent to you a few weeks back. Tharl< you for the update Louie Tomaro . AIA, LEED AP 1 •1-.,"J ll1 1 I I ·0 7 A 1\.1 Attachments 3-369 March 5, 20 I J John Del Arrol Coastal Program Anal) st Califomi11 Coutal Commission South CollSI Distrid 200 Oceangat.e, Io••· Floor Long Beach, Ca 90802 -4416 Re : Khosla Residence 3344 Palos Verdc5 Drive: Wc~L. Rauch l' PalM Verdes Commission AppCJ1I No : A-5-RPV -12 -.lSO Dear John : This letter is in response lo yu ur e-m11il uutc:<l 1:ct1rnnry 27'1' regarding lhc above -referenced projec1. have addressed each item per the numbering in '.>'Our c-n1uil. I. In m) origin nl leller . I ~lttted "there arr dear oceun "iews as vie wed from a vehicle headed Southbound on Palos Verc.les Dr i-.c: o ~ >et·n over the reur portion uf lhe su bjecl lot'·. lncludtd with tbis lener are images that show the 11.nglt: of vi e\\illg from Pa los Verdes Drive South over tht! rear portion nf the lot (Exh ibit A). AISl1 included is a phulo of lh c ~i lh oud te prim to s hifting the house IO' bad; and 1.25 · lower (Exhibit A I \. 2. Per the letter thal I sent Ill you on Fenruur~ 4 , 20 I J. I s t11red in Parugraph 2.C. that each foot that the current building design get<; lower ed would r~sult in appro>.irna tt:l y I, 100 cu . yd s . of grading. Please note that this is thc: lowering or tht! ent ire rad where the hou s e is as well as the su rrounding yard area. The grading requin:d fo r just th e curre nt hudd ing pad is apprn~im111ely 350 cu yds. for each foot the building is lowered . 3. The pnwision s in the tire Cl'><k und mun icipnl c od e rclllfcd to d r iw,~a)' s lopes an: as foll ows : Municipa l Code 17.02 .030.9 • "All driveway s shall be bu ill to mai11tnin in accnn.Juncc '' ith specifications of che Los A nge les County Fire Oepanmen!''. Los Angeles County Fire Codt: #5031 .7 • Requires a 15 • minimum drivc\\'11 }' width a ud 15n,,, m;p;irnum driveway gradi ent . 4. The subjl.'Ct property is b1rnnd~d on thi: Nl•rlh anu \\'est hy a -.uhilivisinn . The associat ion for this subd ivisio n will not :ii ll1\\. drninnge fr om pri\'otc rcsid..::n c cs iut o this :>ub·didsion and onto M•rguerite Drive . Also submitted with this lette r is an e-mai l s ~·nt tn th .; Ci ty from the So uth lldjacen t neighhor Mr. & Mr:.. Stiassni e>..prc$.;ing con<:<!m s about rhi! amount nf gradin~ on the subj~t k't given the pro ximit y of his po ol and slnu.:lur\! h> th.: pro perty I inc ( Ex hihil B). TO W.HO 0(.51GN SflllllP AR\JffTECTURE DMSION 261 I N SEPUlvt:OA BLVD ~IL!ITf 100 MANHAITAN BfAf.H CA 90266 T 31 O 31 8 8089 F i 1 i: .. 1111 9400 WWW 10W.AO COM Attachments 3-370 Additionally, suhmill..xl "'ith th is letter . a page of A geo1echnica1 rc p,1rt from Keith Ehlert and SWN Soiltech (Exhibit C ). p age 8 of th is rcpun, under hmndalion~. st.Illes "If fou ndations nre extended in to bedTtll:i.. t::<~avall<lll nr !he hedrncl. for foundat ion 5 or g.rnding may be difficult at some location s. possibl~ requ irin g ja1.·khammcri11g''. Sine~ '' e l\rt' 11l~11c..I) lowering th e building pud and will be in bedrock with the current design . an~ additional grnding will be cx lrcmcl y difficult, disruptive and potentially damag.ing to ucightmring building" S. During the time of the Pl11nn i11g Cnnuni"ion hearing (1f the City rev ic\\ process. the building was moved back (West) nn additional I 0 foct distance frnm tlw original su bmission. The proposed building was also IO\\.Cred to meet th e r~-que:.ts of the cil> ancJ ultimately approval by the Planning Commission . Although we ha\·e 111mctl the hou'I: had alrcad), the O\.,.ner is not opposed to moving the house back furth~r on the lot . Pl·rhaps :in additio11al 10 Ii. J 1stan~~ \\ould also allow an additional I '-2" drop in I.he building hdght give11 the driveway s lope that n~cd~ to hold per fire department . 6. The original building "as k•c:it ed apprl1ximn1cly 115 feel from 1hc frMt property li ne . Our c urrent proposal ha.-; the front ma in wall llf the h11il <li11g lo,aled at apprmdm ntdy 90 feet from the front property line with an additional Io· mo\'c ,)f rhe propos ed building loca1 io 11. the front setback would be 15 ·from the or iginal house lm~alion . An additional noLc 011 the existing. lot is that ~ou L:an sc:c hj the photo (Exhihil D) that several large trees have been rcmovi;ci 011 thi s lot opening up sign iflc:rnt vie"'~ t l-18'\l. 1-1 6 ... o. 3-14"e, 5·8"0, and 1-30"1<1 tree have hcc11 removed). ( Exhihil r) -;ho"'" the nr igi na l gara ge wi th th e large trees that have si nce been remo1,cu . 7. I have also researched the npp rn\al i;run tcd t 11 .l \ ncht Harbor U11H.: nnd have no ted the follo wing.: • This project is h)cal<!d 1)11 a much slL't:~r narnra l ~lore as compared to our subjcx:t lot . • This project i s located oH:r 20U kct from l'alos Verdes Drive because of the larger lot as well as lower srreet ac c ess po int . • This project is a nu1 ss i.,.c I S.500 ~q . fl . stru c ture . • Driveway on th i~ pn~cl:l is k ss thau 12%, s lupc . • This project is huilt ab n\e th t: ::l" tl1m11 an.: and w;is no1ed in tht: staff rc:po rt dated November 27. 2001 , along wirh other recent project s s ud1as 1ht1sc ll>eatcd :it J.rno P11l os Verdes Drive West and #6 Marguerite Ori.,.e (Exhibit F). • Photo ,)f th~ prnjcct. which is included (Exhibit G) clcnrl~ shows n massive structure of lon g \Valls thal nre nh,tructin~ m;i:an ,·ie1-.s . • This projec1 '"'~ arprnvcd hy th e < 'na~tal (\)mmissinn a~ an a prealahll' coastal 2one project. 'I Z .. ~,££DA I ' Tomaro Architectun.-. T nl:orporati.:J T.MT/atrn Attachments Attachments 3-371 Attachments 3-372 Attachments 3-373 (EXHl5lT ... 5) S J'IA.SSNI .1400 PAI.OS VERD ES DRlVL. WEST RANCIJO l>A LOS VERDES . C'A lXl:?7'i 31 O/'i44 -01'49 ns <.a' ~t1assnicap11;il u ir11 <!11a1 I1 1i.11s 111· '1 1as,11 1ca p!t aLf pm> July 21 . 2012 Lecza Mikhai I City Planner Cily of Rancho Palos Yen.ks The Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palo~ Vl.!rcks . CA 9027:'i I .co.am (llirpv x111n<rnaillo : I .t'tYatn (~_rjl_~_,_1::!.l!!P To Whom It May Co111:ern . I am wrilmg in n :ganb to 1hc prup<•,l'd .;truclure In he construclcJ at ~344 Palos Verdes Drive, \V~\l. My wife <1nd I have revie"-·t'd the ar<:hitectural pl aos drnwn up hy Tomaro Design Group . We welcome the Khu'.\l;.i fam ily to wha t ha s b~'--n ll magic.al loc:.it ion for our f;imily . We npprovl' thl.' plans and h:.tvl' "'' suggl'stinns for any revisions . The one concern that we have which has bee n cxpn!ssc<l 10 R;ivi Kh osl a I'.\ th~ possibility or damage to our retaining wall , pool , pool d eck. and home office hc causl! ol' lhe amount of earth required Lo be remov ed. Ravi has assured me that thi~ will nol be a problem. I uw;t h11l1 hul need tn voice this concern anJ wnul<l li kc 10 re cei ve a -;tructural 1epn1l wilh a~suranccs 1ha1 my pm~rty will 1lllt h e compromiscJ. Wr: lnnk forward lo your n:sp1111 ... c We ah11 look fon'<anJ 10 working with the Khosla family tn ma._e the ir lran silinn In K;md111 f>;ilm. V erde' a plca sanl one . Sincl!rely . Nick & Suzie Stias•mi Cc : Ravi Kh11.;la Attachments 3-374 :: . ~; .. 4 0 4 2 -9 7 (EXHl61T • C) Page B rvut~DATI ONS '' soils engineer should make appropriate recorn:nendations with regard to design criteria tor any proposed f ou nd a t i ons. Some cf ~~e rock encountered in the lest excavations ccnsisted of very hard sili~eous silt s tone and dolostune. lf foundn.t.ions ar€ extended i~t~ bedrock, excavaticn of the bedrock for f~und~tig~~ or grading r.:ay .pe difficult at so1r1e locations, possibly requiring I J • ·- j d ckhammeri ng. ~his consultant's e~perience on p~evious pro)e c t ~ indicates that 1.:a te: seepage lhroug i1 re ta i rd ng ;..•al': s 15 .~ common -prob J c:-i. ~:~~a ugh excess i ve g~o ~nd~~ter is n o t l1~~ly tc b~ ~problem on the ~1 te, if penet.ration ot rnoistl<re through reta 1n.ng i,:al.ls i.s not desired, any proposed retai~ing walls shoulJ be extens i vely ;:at1;q:roote<l . It h as been th is c onsultant's rxperi.~nce that j us~ ~;i-:np l P. "hot P opping" i s not adequate in sane e aser-;. ~~I !"J'1ING POOL DESJGI'! CRITERlti A soj ls engineer should make apprupr ;.at.c recommendations \,;i th regard to design criteria for the propcsed swi~rn1 n g pool. It has been our experience that unless a swimming pool is designed as "free standing", it may be subject to possible cracking due to loc.11 soil influences. It has also beP.n our experience that it is nu ~ uncommon for concrete decking around a swimming pool to crack er separate from the pool unless it is des i gned to resist 1ocal sell influenc es. Even )f the s1odrnming poo l is founded i n natural materials and ma)' not be subject to local so il influences, the dednng could crad: o r move ur.less it )s de s ign~d to resist the loca l soJl influen c es. We have found that homco~ners generally Attachments 3-375 Attachments 3-376 Attachments 3-377 Memorandum: Coastal Permit No . 170/172. et al. November 27 , 2001 Page 3 detached garage wi ll be screened from view from Palos Verdes DrJVe South by an earthen berm and the ·'roof' will be planted with turf and/or low-growing . shallow-rooted shrubs As now proposed , a portion of the detached garage would encroach into the 20-foot front-yard setback a rea . Although this 1s permitted for structures that are completely subterrane3n . the garage is only partially subterranean and would need to comply with the required setback. Therefore . Staff recommends cond tt1o n ing the approval of the project upon modifications to the ga ra ge so that it respects the 20-foot setback. Finally , the functions of the former study and guest house have been swapped , but the structures themselves remain at about the same size and location The total quantity of grading h as decreased by 4 .705 cubic yards. but the quantity or export has increased by 5, 153 cubic yards . The applicant has provided a diagram to assist in the i nterpretation of the silhouettes . The si lhouettes depict the major roof planes and walls of the main house study and guest Muse. based upon the revised project plans submitted to the Ci ty on November 13. 2001 Staff has inspected the silhouettes and believes thal they reasonably depict the location . height and bulk of the proposed proJect . a s 1 e 1eves a pu 1c views or motorists. bicyc ists or pe es nans w1 no e cantly impaired by the revised project. With respect to private views from residences in the Sea view community. in the October 9, 2001 Staff report . Staff acknowledged that some private views from homes across Palos Verdes Drive South might be advers ely aHected by the proposed residence. Al that time . Staff also noted that the proposed residence was only twelve feet ( 12 '0") tall. as measured pursuant to the Development Code The project has since been revised to a height of ten feet ( 10'0 "). which 1s six feet (6 '0") lower than the maximum 16-foot hetght limit permitted "by right." A lthough the 10-foot-tall structure will block some portions of private ocean views . 1t should not encroach upon views of Santa Catalina lsland2. which is the major focal /----=--...., ..... / ' Recent apprnved proiects thal ex ceeded lhe 2 -degree do·,..,n-a rc bul ·,..,ere not located in a specific 11 1ew corridor include 330::> Palos Verdes Ori•,e West . 3344 Palos ve·des D rove 'Nest tno! burl!) ard 6 Marguer ~te ~-~~ -~n lommately tne 1stano was not ~l early v1s1b le 011 the date 01 Staffs 1nspect1cn . OL: e ighest portion o f the hOJSe was not higher than the v1~1t.>le hor izon on the dale o' nspEct1or. Attachments 3-378 b Attachments 3-379 Let me know if you would like any further infonnation . Thank you, Leu Mikhail AJ sodate Planner Cily oj'l(pndw <Palm VmU.s Pl1nn 1na O.partmont 30940 HawthOrne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdel, CA 90275 www .pelosygs.con\11:pvlplanning/phuming-zonjne,i'index cfm (310) SU-522' -(310) 544-5293 f lezam@mv.com 2 Attachments 3-380 May 15. 2013 John De l Arroz Coastal Program Analys1 California Coastal Commission South Coa st District 200 Oceongate. 101-. Floor Long Beach. Co 90802-44 16 Re : Khosla Residence 3344 Polos Verdes Drive West . Rancho Po los Verdes Commission Appeal No. A -5-RPV-12-350 Dear John: Since receiv ing your last e-mail on Moy 61h, 2013. we hove mode t he following adjust men ts 1o lhe plans as well as provided lhe following information as requested : 1. The p roposed project ridge is lo wered on additional 12" by f101tening a portion of th e root as depic ted in the revised submitted drawings. 2. All c h im neys hove been lowered significantly in some locations by more than 3 '-0". This has been accomplished by usi ng more expensive masonry fireboxes which have o d ifferent type of spark arrester cop . The new chimney heights hove also been shown on the revised submitted drawings. 3. En closed with th is submittal is a leller lrom Norcol Eng ineering. our geotechnicol engineer. who has outlined in the le t ter the concerns with grading into the volcanic bedro ck which e xists on the si te at 1 -3 feet below the existing grade. This letter expresses the concerns w ith ex1ensive grading into suc h dense bedrock on the impa c t l o surround ing residences . Ple ase accept these modifications as our final a t tempt in providing oddilional mitiga tion measures to your view concerns. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely, Louie Tomaro. A . I. A .. LEE D AP Tomaro Archiiecfu re . Incorporated LM T/afm A1fachmen1 C:rnydoc umen1s\w0fd\let1ers\khosla johndetorroz .doc Attachments 3-381 Nor(:al Engineering SL1il .... an d l iL·ok1,;h11iutl ( '011 ->ult;1nts I llf1·l I f-llllnh11ll S trcL·t I n!-> 1\lalllilo!-. c ·,.\ lJ()T.J O (:'i <1 2 J 7 1J•J .\JHi'I I a\ 1'\f,:~l 7'J•)-•) l'-l} May ·1 . 20 lJ Hav1 and Sham1ta Khosla clo Tomaro Design Group, Inc 26 17 N Sepu lveda Boulevard . Suite 100 Man hattan Beach. California 9026 6 Attn : Mr. Louie Tomaro t>roJCC1 NurnhP.r 9669-0 1 RE. Grading Recommendations -Proposed Residential Development - located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West , in the C ity of Rancho Palos Verdes . California Dear Mr Tomaro : Pursuant to your request , this f irm has reviewed the previous geotechnical reports listed below regarding grading of the underlying bedrock material proposed for the above referenced project The following re ports reviewed consist of the following : 1 Keith Ehlert Consult in g Engineering Geologist -Geologrcal Investigation for Proposed Residential Development -3344 Pa l os Verdes Drive West. Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal1forn1a. Project Numbe r 4042 -97 dated December 8, 1997 . 2 SWN Soiftech Consultants -Report of Soil Engineering Invest igation - proposed Residential Development -3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Ve rdes . California Project Reference 4204 -97 dated December 8 , 1997. 3 NorCal Engineerin g -Updated Soils Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Development -Located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West, Proj ect Number 9669 .. 01 dated December 1, 2001 . Attachments 3-382 May 7, 2013 Page 2 Project Number 9669·01 1 he reports describe the sub1ect property situated on an <lll c1enl urlifled wave -cu1 bench on the western margin of the Palos Ve rde s Peni11sula Geologic mapping by Dibblee ( 1999) indicates t11al tt ·ie are3 1s underla1r1 by rniddle Miocene basalt, locally mantled by non -marine t errace deposits S 1 t1~-spec 1 fir; sub~;ur f ;;jc t" geolog ic expl o rat ion by Ehlert (1991) and NorCal l::ngrneering (2001) confirm that tht; sub)P.ct lot 1s underlain by ve1 y hard volcarnc breccia and ba~alt , locally mar.tied by th in veneers ol ter rnce oepor.!tF. and rnan-m adP. fill The volcanic breccia is described as co nsisting of orange-brown vo lcanic rnatnx enca~1f1~ blocks of extremely hard dolostone and cherty siltstone and was encountered at a depth from 1 to 3 feet below existing ground surface It should be noted that all referenced reports expressed concern that excavation of tile bedroc k. material will be extremely d1ff1cult due to its hardness and 1t is our professional opinion that extensive grading will induce vibration that may impact the ne1ghbonng properties. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service lo you . If you have any further questions , please do not hesitate lo contact ttic undersigned Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING ·' ... : ' j I. ,6 ( ' • J . •·· , I ' ' ,, ;· Keith D. Tucker Project Engineer R.G F . 841 NorCal Engineering ( Scott 0 . Spensiero Proj ect Manager Attachments 3-383 Wurkspaci: Wi:bmail :: Prim hllp~:/l i:ma i l04.sec ureserver.net-'v1rn· _print _multi.php?uid/\rray = 12'1 ... Inf/ Print I Close Window Subject: RE: Khosla Appeal From: "Del Arroz, John@Coastal" <John.DelArroz@coastal.ca.gov> Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 8:4'1 pm To : "louiet@tomaro.com" <louiet@tomaro.com>, "mail@ravikhosla .com" <mail@ravikhosla.com> lot11e , Plfase find the following poi nts m response to your letter. I think once we get mrne additional evidence, we'll be in good shape for a meeting to discuss the evidenc<' 1. Your letter st;:itcs that there are clear ocean views from PV Driw, viewed over the rcilr of the structure . Please send evidence of th is -i1 there are good photo s or the site when the story poles are up, and these show whdl you're talking about, that would be fine . 2. You stale thal lowering the house would result in greatly increased grading amount~. Do you have current and alternative wading plans to depict what would occur under the current proposal, and what would occur if the house was lowe red? 3. What specific provision of the Fire Code or Municipal Code would conflict with the driveway grade which you citf' in your IC'tter? L1 . le; directing drainage down towards Marguerite Drive µossible? Wha L evickncc do you have of potential geologic instability? 5. The letter doe~ nut C:H.ltlress what either 1) moving the house back away from the street, wuuld look like, and 2) what an alternative design or size of house might do to thE height uf the house. 6 . Where on the site was the previous house located? 7. We have some research to do with regards to tile other houses that you cite as permitted in the last 11 years -our electronic databasf' entrif'~ don't go back that far However, one of the houses cited, .~yacht h;-i r hor, offNs only minimal obstruction to ocean views . If there was a site design that offered a similar view from Pa los Verdes Drive, that 1nciy be a good area to pursue . John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 From: Louie Tomaro [mailto:louiet@tomaro.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:28 AM To: Del Arroz, John@Coastal cc: mail@ravikhosl<!,_'PTJ:l Subject: 3344 PVD w John, Good morning . Just thought I would check in with you to see if you have any comments for us on the letter that was sent to you a few weeks back. Thank you for the update Attachments 3-384 Workspace Webmnil :: Print LoUte Tomaro. AIA LEED AP TOMARO DESIGN GROUP Inc Architecture Division 2617 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 100 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 310 .318.8089 Tel 310.318 9400 Fax www.TOMARO.com htt p~:i.:t:mail04 .secu reservc r.n c1 1 ~iew y rint _ mu lti .php?uidArray= 124 ... Copyr ight © 2003-2013 Al l rights reserved . 2 of 2 Attachments 3-385 Workspace Wehma il :: Print hllps ./:ern ail04 .se e urc ~c:r v e r.ne t'v i ew yr1 11 r rn u lti.php?ui uArra y"' 14 2 ... Print I .se Window Subject: RE : 3344 Pv Drive From : "Del Arroz, John@Coastal" <John.DelArroz@coastal.ca.gov> Date : Mon , Apr 29, 2013 11 :49 am To : Louie Tomaro <louiet@tomaro.com>, "mail@ravikhosla.com " <mail@ravik hosla .com> Attach: image001 .gif Lo u ie , Rav i: Can w e set th e m eeti ng for 2 pm t o m o r row ? John De l Arroz Coastal Program Analyst Ca lifornia Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach , CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 From: Louie Tomaro [mailto:louiet@tomaro.com) Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 2:04 PM To: Del Arroz, John@Coastal; mail@ravikhosla .com Subject: RE: 3344 Pv Drive John. I understand from Rav i that he dropped off the info that we provided to him for the requests you asked fo r rn the email. I would like to see about seltmg up the meeting you suggested wit h you and the director to d iscuss the next step so that we can move this project along . Tuesday April 30th a t 10:30 seems to work for me, and I am wondering if that still fits into your schedules,. Please let me know, and if that will not work. what time might work on Tuesday . Thank you Arcl l!tE'ctur1: DMs1011 From: Del Arroz, John@Coastal [mailto:John.DelArroz@coastal,ca.gov) Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:12 PM To: Louie Tomaro; mail@ravikhosla .com Subject: 3344 Pv Drive Dear Mr. Khosla , M r. Tomaro : As we dis cussed toci;iy, the current ly propo s<ll appear s t o be inrnnsis t enl w ith t hr LCP re quirem e nt t o preserve ocr;in views from Palos Verdes Dr ive (PV Drive). However, you h;ivr sta t ed t hat the projec t should be considered to be consistent witl1 the LCP due to : Attachments 3-386 Workspace Webmail :: Print https:.'/emnil04 .sccurc s er ver.nc:t /v ie\~ _prim _mu lri.php'!uidAr rnyc• J 42 .. 2of3 1) sile ~pecific constraints, incluclmg a) different elevatiom between Palo~ VNdes Drive North and Pdlo s Verde<> Drive South, b ) The curve of PV Drivr South allows views bell ind the propo~Pn reside nce , 2) eq uity r.cm rr rns regard ing the lack of Coinmi!ision action on oth er recent construchon in 1h0 :ir0il, 3) additional measures to reduce im pacts to vi0wc,, such as cidd1tional grad ing , are not f0vsi ble or do not resul t in signifkanl improvement s to views If you were proposing a projett tha t i~ consistent with LCP policies , staff cou ld recommend approval or that project. However, if you are proposing a project that is not con~islent wi th a stri ct read ing of the LCP, but thi!t rnuld be viewed as consistent due to t he factor~ lis t 1~d above , t he Comm ission will need t o revi ew that pr oject to determine whether an approval is warranted. Please 11rovide the documents detailed below. This is both to <:nsure that staff has th e information necessary to ad eqL1ate ly analyze the project, and lo ensure that statt and the applicant arC' prepared to respond to quest ions regarding the project by the Commission . 1) A si te plan and elevation (cross section front ruJu lo se award lot line) for a residen c e wh id1 i~ consis tent with the view policy as stated in tlte LCP. Th e City lists this being a hou se with a m <i ximum height of 268'. What w o uld the approxim ;3 tP. square footage for this residence be":l What wo11ld the views from PV Drive South ;3nd North look like w ith this alternative "? 2) You have provided a site plan for a rev ised footprint of the house that has improved views compared to the original design approved by the City by locating the house more to the southwest. Please also submit a) the cross section depicting the elevation of PV Drive South, PV Drive North, and the maximum elevation of the proposed residence b) a view simulation depicting the proposed residence as vi ewed from directly in front of the house on PV Drive North c) a view simulation depicting the proposed residence as viewed from directly in front of the house on PV Drive South . d) You may also wish to include a view simulation from PV Drive South showing views from farther away showing the impact of the curve of the road . A 'c onceptual' level of p l<:111s is al l that is needed at this time. Although the drawings ~lto u ld be to scale and accurate in their dep iction of the buildinp, envelope (footprint and height ), they do not need to be fully detailed plans showinp, locations of r ooms , framing, etc. Fo r view simulations, a dip.ital simulation depicting the residence, or a plwtograph depirting ;i limited number of story poles necessa ry to depict thr. highPst points of the resi de nce woulrl be sufficient. If after a review of the documents, it is evident that additional feasible measures are available to reduce visual impacts from PV Drive, we may ask for additional plans which incorporate additional feasible measures . If there is a question regarding interpre tation of the LCP, and to what level we should require conformance with a strict reading of the LCP, those projects are typically brought to the Commission for a full hearing . In this case, if we can work out an agreement or a potential alternative design that hea ring would likely be a combined Substantial Issue/ De Novo hearing . Based upon the hearing schedu le, the earliest we could take the project to hearing would be the July hearing in the San Diego area . If the proposed project is revised to be consistent with the LCP, and if we agree that the proposed residence r..:1o nf\1' L·"'' n A A Attachments 3-387 Workspace Webrnail :: Print https ://ema i 104 .secureserver.net/vicw_print_ mu hi. php'luidArray-142 ... is consistent, then there is a possibility of amending the original Coastal Development t-'ermit or doing a new Coastal Development Permit at the City. We'd be happy to meet with you regarding the project. For best effect, such a meeting should occur a few days after submittal of the above requested documents. Potential meeting dates include : Monday or Tuesday, April 291h or 3Q'h, at some point between 10 and 4 . John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach , CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 Copyright© 200:>-2013 . All rights reserved . Attachments 3-388 Workspace Webmnil :: Prinl h ttp~::;cma il04 .::.e~ureserver.nr1 ,.v i e\\ _pri nt_ multi.php'!u id Array = 14 7 ... Print I Close Window Subject : RE: [FWD : 3344 Palo6 Verdes Estates, RPV] From: "Del Arroz, John@Coastal" <John .DelArroz@coastal.ca.gov> Date: Wed, May 01 , 2013 2:02 pm To: Louie Tomaro <Jouiet@tomaro.com> Cc: "mail@ravikhosla.com" <mail@ravikhosla.com> Thank you very much . John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach , CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 -----Original Message --- From: Louie Tomaro (mailto:l ouiet@tomaro .com] Sent; Wednesday, May 01 . 2013 12·42 PM To: Del Arroz, John@Coastal Cc: mail@ravikhosla .com Subject : FW: [FWD : 3344 Palos Verdes Estates , RPV] John, Per your earlier email today Attached is the latest report from Norcal engineering fo r the subject site If you look at th e ladde r part of the report on Figure 1 you can see a section thru the site showing a line of the volcanic bedrock that is shown This areas is 1 1/2 ft to 3 ft below t he surface area of the existing slope on the lot We are excavating in some areas 9 ft into the grade with t he current design . Please let me know if you have any other questions fo r us regarding the geological conditions Thanks you Louie Tomaro Copyright © 2003-2013 . Al l rights reserved. Attachments 3-389 Work space Wehma il :: Print ht!ps:::em ail04 .s cc u re~c r vt:r.net/v iew y rint _ multi.php?uidA rray -== 1.5 I .. 1 o r 2 Print I Close Window Subj ect : RE : 3344 PV Driv e Residence From : "Del Arroz, John @Coasta l" <John.DelArroz@coasta l.ca .gov> Date: Fri, May 10, 201 3 11 :0 6 am To : Louie To maro <l o ui et@tomaro .com>, "mai l@ravikhosla .c om" <mail@ravikhosla.c om> Attach : im age00 1.glf Lou ie, 1hank you for yo u r emai l. I'll r eview thr. add itio na l materia l s a s soon as I a m ahl r John Del A rrez C oasta l Program Ana lyst Californ ia Coastal Commission 200 Oceanga1e 1n~h F loor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-507 1 From : Lou ie Tomaro [mai lto :louiet@tomaro.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9 :23 AM To: Del Arroz, John@Coastal; mail@ravikhosla.com Subject: RE : 3344 PV Drive Residence John, Thank you for your latest ema il regard ing th e p roj ec t at 3344 PV D r W I h av e contacted Norcal Engineeri ng , our Geotechnical engineer, and theY. wi ll be p roviding you a letter on Monday th at will co nfirm the ir repo rt of the dense bedrock and the concern with any extensive grading on this lot. Additi onally, after discussing the p roject with the owners , we w ill be submitting again ~mothe r attempt to lower the height of the structure by eli minating some of the roof area as well as lowering the chimneys as you have requested . These modified plans w ill also be sent to you along w ith the Geotechnical letter on Monday next week . Our attempt to reduce the structure further should show that we would like lo do every thing possible to work with staff to find a compromise to the project and obtain you r approval of the project If after your review of our next submittal ,you determine that the changes and info provided are not acceptable to staff ,th e n we request to be scheduled for the Ju ly Coastal Commission hearing . Thank you ArchiH:ctu1 ~ [11.,.1 s1<'\n f rom: Del Ar roz , John@Coa sta l [m ai lto:John .DelArroz@ coasta l.ca .go_\.'] sent: Monday, May 06 , 2013 2 :45 PM To: mail@ravikhosla.com; Louie Tomaro Subject: 3344 PV Drive Residen ce Dear Mr. Kho sla, Mr. Tomaro: Attachments 3-390 Worhpact: Webmail :: Pr int https :/:em a il04.securcsc rver.net:vit:\\'_ print multi.php ?u id/\rray == I 51 ... 2 of2 Thank you for meeting with Teresa and myself on Tuesday. We understand that you have gone through the local approval process, and that you are reluctant to change your basic design . Furthermore, we understand that you have made some revisions and put forward what you think is the design that best preserves views, given the circumstan ces of the site . However, after considering all of the submitted information, we believe that there are still unanswered questions preventing us from making the same conclusion and which will likely be raised in the Commission 's hearing on the project. Those questions relate to the feasibility of alternatives that would reduce impacts to views. Answering these questions will reduce the amount of unresolved issues and focus the discussion on those aspects of the project that need to be addressed. If it is unclear that the proposed project has minimized impacts to views, as required by the certified LCP, the Commission may decide to deny the project if it appears that other feasible less impactful alternative designs exist. Therefore, please provide the following information: -The subm itted geotechnical report states that underneath the project footings there are a few feet of fill soils on the site, with natural soils and bedrock located beneath. However, the submitted report does not include a recommendation regarding additional grading. Other projects located in the coastal zone have included grading in bedrock, and the submitted report includes soil strength data which may indicate that some additional grading may be possible. Pleas e provide a conceptual plan that lowers the elevation of the house to avoid impacts to public views from PV Drive South (i.e . reduce the height of the house to about 268' through additional grading, retaining walls , or other measures). What from an engineering standpoint would this require -how much additional grading and cost? -Are changes to the pitch of the roof, or reductions in the elevations of chimneys, possible? -If the reduction in height to 268' is not feasible, could the residence be lowered to some level below the current proposal but above 268'and what is the visual impact of a structure at this height? Please note that we are not asking you to revise the currently proposed project if you do not wish to make any further revisions-we are asking for additional information in order to better assess the impacts of the project, including feasible alternatives. However, if you do not wish to provide this information, we will proceed with scheduling your project for hearing in July. John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst Californ ia Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach , CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 Copyright© 2003-2013. All rights reserved Attachments 3-391 Moy 15. 2013 John Def Arroz Coas1al Program Analyst Calilo<nlo Coastal Commission South Coast District 200 Oceongote, JQ!h Floor Long Beach. Ca 90802-4416 Re : Khoslo Residence •• TO~-IARO I JI ~I l o \ 1, it ll : I'_ 3344 Polos Verdes Drive West. Rancho Polos Verdes Commission Appeal No. A-5 -RPV -12 -350 Dear John: Since receiving your lost e-mail on May 6111 , 20 13. we hove mode 1he following adjustments to the plans as well as provided the following information as requested: l . The proposed project ridge is lowered on additional l 2" by flallening a portion of the roof as depicted in the revised submi11ed drawings. 2 Ail chimneys hove been lowered significantly in some locations b y more th an 3 '-0". This has been accomplished by u sing more expensive masonry firebox.es which hove o d ifferent type of spark arres1er cap. The new chimney heights have a lso been shown on !he revised submitted drawings . 3 . Enclosed with this submittal Is o letter from Norco! Engineering. our geotechnical engineer, who hos oullined in lhe le lier the concerns with grading into the volcanic bedrock which exists on the site at I -3 fee1below1he existing grade . This leller expresses the concerns with extensive grading in1o such dense bedrock on the impocl lo surrounding residences. Please accept these modific ations as our lino! attempt in providing additional m it igation measures lo your view concerns . Thank you for your considero1ion . Sincer~!7 /J ;. ·" / _,,,.. '-i'y y.·-~· ~ie Tomaro. t·i:A-.. -LE_E_D_A_P Tomaro Architecture. Incorporated LMT/o!m Allachmenl C:mydocumenls\wQfd\letlers\~hoslo ·lohndel onoz .do c lOMARO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTURE DIVISION 2617 N. SEPULVEDA BLVD . SUITE 100 MANHATIAN BEACH CA 90266 T 3103188089 r: 3103189400 WWW.TOMARO COM Attachments 3-392 ; . •. \ -~ . ~ .. ' . ! Attachments 3-393 ·• .. ~· . ----- 1 ~ .., ~ f s ---- ~ . " ~ l' l' ~ " ~ ·' ~ ~ \- ' ~ 2 ' ~ ' () ~ ' 1·-· ~ ~ '.>/ -. " l' ~ I ,.. • ~ ~ (' :,~ -----~ ~;;\~ ~~ ~~ C) ~ ~~ ~~ rn ,, •Z ~ \l ~<::; ,. "' -r ~~ J ~.~ ~ • ~ (:! :: ! ?. J Im! ~I : ir l>r>r.~L>f.>I r EHrn2' fl~ ~~ .~i! f ~r~ ~a ' , -i i U 60 L ~ ~ ~ "i: "~ l s R ie~~~ u ii u ~~ ~~ ---·-----·------··-·-···-·--··-· ~---··----------'-·-·--··~----------4-------. ---· -··-·---------"'~·--·--·--·------·-·----Attachments 3-394 Work space Webmail :: Prin t https ://c::mail 04 .~c curtsc rv cr.ncl!\·i c w _p rint muhi.php'.>uidA rray= J 74 .. I o f 2 Print I Close Window Subject: 3344 PVDr W discussion 6 12 From : "Del Arroz, John@Coastal" <John.OelArroz@coastal.ca.gov> Date : Wed, Jun 12, 2013 3:26 pm To : "mall@ravlkhosla.com" <mail@ravikhosla.com> Cc : "Henry, Teresa@Coastal" <Teresa.Henry@coastal.ca.gov>, Louie Tomaro <louiet@tomaro .com> Ravi, Today I had a brief conversation with you at the counte r regarding the p roject Things which I recommended that you might want lo do , either prior to the hearing , o r prior to th e staff report include: a) a engineered photo simulation from different perspectives, showing what lhe views on the site look lik e now, and what they will be after construction of the project , similar to the one you saw in lhe Commission hearing today. Something showing the effec:l of the curve, and the views from North and South, would probably be helpful b) The view simulation which we currently have uses the median between PV Drive North and South as lhe viewpoint for the northbound I~;?~ This appears to be a few 1eet higher than the Northbound lane . As it's not clear that the median is a designated, or well used, walkway, would the view simulation from the northbound lane change muc h if the person was instead standing on PV drive north . c) The geologic reports which you've submitted state that further digging might encounter noise or vibration problems . Part of what may come up at the hearing is the feasibility of any further grading . Anything showing whether additional lowering of the residence is feasible may be beneficial. d) showing the height of you r house compared lo the height of the residence next door (to the south) may be benefic ial e) I need to review the file to see whether we already have this information. but I need to make sure that the lots to the north have been restricted so that no development can occur on these lots in the future Finally . I gave you a card with a project number on 11. I d id this because this was the last contentious hearing which I remembered at the t ime . Please on ly take this as a n example of the types of discussion that can occur during the Commission meeting. Please note that the previous are examples of what I have seen appl icants do in the past , o r what may be beneficial to address questions which will be raised at the hearing . As I stated today, wherever possible Commission staff tries to come to agreement with an applicant regarding the recommendation for the project. However, we also need to make sure that the recommendation is cons istent with the certified Local Coastal Program. We're still in discussions regarding what the staff recommendation will be, and as soon as I can provide you w ith the recommendat1on , I will do so . The hearing date will be set late next week, and the staff report will be released either the end of next week . or the following week. Thank you for your lime . John Del Arroz Coastal Program Analyst ••..• Original Message-···· From : LouieTomaro(mailto :louiet@tomaro com] Sent : Friday, June 07 , 2013 11 ·13 AM To : Del Arroz. John@Coastal Cc mait@ravikhosla .com Subject : RE : 3344 PVDr W John , Thank you for thi s info Can you tell me if you had a chance to look over our last submission as well a nd 1f yo u have a ny commenls on the plans 61 1812013 5:56 PM Attachments 3-395 Workspac e Webmail :: Print hllps: l/cnrn i 104 .secu resen i:r.n~1/v i cw_print __ multi .ph p?uidArray = I 74 ... ? nf ") ? T han k you ----Original Message---- From Del Arroz . John@Coastal [ma1 llo :John.DelArroz@coastal.ca .gov} Sent Friday, June 07, 2013 11 .02 AM To · Louie Tomaro Cc: mail@ravikhosla .com Subject: RE : 3344 PVOr W Louie , The tentative dale for the hearing is between the 10th and 12th of July at the Ventura City Hall. We won't know the exac1 date of the hearing until about 2 weeks from now. ----Original Message--- From : Louie Tomaro [mailto:louiet@tornaro.com] Sent: Friday, June 07 , 2013 5 20 AM To : Del Arroz, John@Coastat Cc: mai l@ravikhosla .com Subject: 3344 PVOr W John , I sent you an email a few weeks ba ck to check on the sta tus of the hearing for the Khos la project Can you give us an update on the date of the hearing ? Thank you Lo uie Tom aro Se nt from my iPhone Copyri ght© 200:>-2013 . All rights reserved. 6118.12013 5:.'i6 PM Attachments 3-396